Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 June 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                                                                                                10 June 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, 10 June 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 - 13 May 2014

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for the purposes of clause 66 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the General Manager is required to keep a register of Councilor voting on planning matters. Planning matters are any decisions made in the exercise of a function of a council under the EP&A Act and include decisions relating to a development application, an environmental planning instrument, a development control plan or a development contribution plan under that Act. In addition, Randwick City Council has resolved (22 July 2008) that its register of voting include the voting on all tender matters.

D49/14      49 Earl Street , Randwick (DA/61/2014).................................................... 1

D50/14      3 Cairo Street, South Coogee (DA/573/2013).......................................... 11

D51/14      10 Victory Street, Clovelly - DA/72/2013/A............................................. 31

D52/14      19-21 Lister Avenue, Little Bay (DA/840/2007/D)..................................... 39

D53/14      10A Kynaston Avenue, Randwick (DA/597/2013)...................................... 45

D54/14      3 Kyogle Street, Maroubra (DA/703/2013/A)........................................... 59

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil   

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                10 June 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D49/14

 

 

Subject:                  49 Earl Street, Randwick (DA/61/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/61/2014

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing carport, ground floor alterations and first floor addition to existing dwelling, new rear gate and alterations to rear wall, landscaping and associated works (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Nextspace Design

Owner:                         Mr R A Dawson & Ms F D Bozic

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee as the applicant is a close relative of a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

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

 

Ground floor

·           Demolition of the rear part of the existing dwelling house and the construction of a new bathroom and laundry behind the existing bedrooms, and an open plan kitchen, dining and living area at the rear;

·           demolition of the existing carport to make way for a new carspace in the rear yard accessed from Castle Street;

·           alterations to the rear boundary wall and installation of an automatic sliding timber gate;

·           alterations to the existing northern side boundary wall adjoining the rear yard of no. 47 Earl Street;

·           replace the existing timber fence along part of the southern side common boundary with No. 51 Earl Street to incorporate a nil setback associated with the ground floor addition and a new masonry fence adjoining the rear yard; and

·           provision of a new landscape regime for the property.

 

First floor

·           construction of a first floor addition comprising two bedrooms and two bathrooms and a rear facing balcony.

 

Amended Plans

 

Concerns were raised in relation to heritage and design issues, namely the bulk and scale of the first floor addition and its potential impact on the original roof form and the streetscape. Concerns were also raised in relation to the ground level extension and the visual impact to the adjoining property at No. 51 Earl Street due to a new boundary wall with a nil setback. A meeting was held with the applicant to discuss the concerns on 14 April 2014. In response the applicant submitted amended plans to Council on 13 May 2014 with the following changes to the design:

 

Ground floor

·       A step in the rear extension resulting in the boundary wall adjoining No. 51 Earl Street being reduced in length by 3m from 10m to 7m.

 

First floor

·       An increased front setback of 725mm from 10.09m to 10.816m; and

·       An increased side setback of 350mm from 1m to 1.35m.

 

The amended layout of the ground floor and the first floor is shown in Figures 1 and 2.  Because the changes to the design reduce the impacts to adjoining properties and the streetscape the application was not re-notified to the public.

 

 

Figure 1Ground floor plan (as amended)

 

Figure 2First floor plan (as amended)

 

Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Earl Street, between Stephen Street and Challis Street , Randwick. The site has a primary frontage to Earl Street and a secondary frontage to Castle Street. Vehicular access is currently provided from Castle Street

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 34A in DP 439095. It is rectangular in shape with an area of 196.2sqm. The site has a frontage of 6.3m to Earl Street and Castle Street and a depth of 32m.

 

The site contains a single storey semi-detached dwelling house which forms a pair with No. 47 Earl Street adjoining to the north (refer to Figure 1). The subject pair is part of a group of semi-detached dwelling houses comprising Nos. 39-49 Earl Street which is within the North Randwick heritage conservation area. The group retain their original Federation detailing including front fencing, terracotta tiled roof, face brick walls and timber windows. The dwelling houses at Nos. 39, 43 and 45 Earl Street have been subject to first floor additions towards the rear from the primary Earl Street frontage but prominent from the Castle Street secondary frontage.

Adjoining to the south is a pair of semi-detached dwelling houses at Nos. 51-53 Earl Street. Further south is a group of detached and semi-detached weatherboard cottages at Nos. 55-61 Earl Street listed as heritage items under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012).

 

No. 45

 

No. 47

 

No. 51

 

Subject site

 

Figure 3 – The subject site viewed from Earl Street

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013). One submission was received from the adjoining property at No. 51 Earl Street as a result of the notification process which provided the following comment:

 

“we have no objections to the proposed development so long as approval is given within the limits of Randwick council planning laws and the adjoining fence remains the same height.”

 

The proposal’s compliance against the relevant planning controls including the fence has been addressed in the Compliance Table and the Key Issues section of this assessment report.

 

The submission also outlined suggested conditions in relation to the following matters:

·         notification prior to commencement of works;

·         encroachment of structures along the boundaries;

·         consultation in relation to access prior to construction;

·         insurance to cover damage to adjoining properties; and

·         a privacy screen on the south-eastern corner of the upper floor balcony.

 

There is no statutory requirement for notification of adjoining landowners prior to commencement of work. However, an advisory note to that effect is recommended on the consent. A standard condition in relation to building encroachments is also recommended on the consent. Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) being provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council is recommended as a condition on the consent. The amended plans show a solid privacy screen on both sides of the balcony at the rear of the first floor addition which addresses the privacy concerns raised by the neighbour.

Key Issues

 

Heritage

The subject site is located within the North Randwick heritage conservation area and the application was referred to Council’s heritage planner for comment.

 

The primary heritage concern relates to the setback of the first floor addition and its visual impact on the streetscape from Earl Street. The other concerns relate to the loss of a considerable portion of the original main pitched roof and its visually dominant impact on the original from and massing of the existing pair of dwelling houses.

 

An email was sent to the applicant on 3 April 2014 outlining these concerns and a meeting was held between the applicant and Council’s heritage planner on 14 April 2014.

 

The applicant subsequently amended the proposal by reducing the size of the bedrooms at the first floor resulting in an increased setback by 725mm and 350mm to the front and side southern boundary, respectively. The ground floor extension was also amended by providing a recess at the rear of the building (a 900mm setback for a length of 2.950m) adjoining the southern side boundary resulting in the wall length on the boundary being reduced by 3m from 10m to 7m.

 

The amended plans were reviewed by Council’s heritage planner and the following comments provided:

 

“Amended plans have increased the front setback of the upper level addition by 725mm and increased the side setback by around 350mm.  The increased front and side setbacks will assist in reducing the prominence of the upper level addition in the streetscape of Earl Street and reduce its impact on the symmetry and integrity of the front elevation of the semi-detached pair.  The height of the proposed first floor is generally 420mm lower than the ridge height of the existing roof, assisting in minimising its bulk.  The proposed vertical hardwood wall cladding for the upper level will relate the addition to the existing roof finish, while the band of highlight windows to the front and side elevations will simplify the form of the addition.” 

 

Council’s heritage planner also recommended conditions be imposed on the consent in relation to materials and finishes.

 

The proposed amendments will setback the first floor addition behind the ridge of the original roof by 650mm and 10.8m to the Earl Street frontage. In addition, the new roof will be 420mm lower than the existing ridge (refer to Figure 4). The first floor addition would therefore read as a secondary form and sit within the tiled roof form to reduce its visual dominance. The lightweight design including the use of contemporary materials such as vertical timber cladding and a band of highlight windows will also assist in reducing its visual dominance and ensure a distinction between the new and old components of the dwelling house.

 

The amended design is therefore considered to comply with Council’s heritage controls which seek to protect the character of the conservation area by reducing the dominance of first floor additions when viewed from the street.

 

The first floor addition will be dominant from Castle Street at the rear of the site. However, Castle Street is a secondary frontage which is already dominated by prominent first floor additions and ground level garages and parking structures. The impact is therefore minor in the context of the existing built form character of Castle Street.

 

The amended design is considered to be acceptable in terms of heritage impacts.

Figure 4 – Front elevation (as amended the proposed first floor addition is shown as a red dashed line)

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The existing dwelling house has a gross floor area (GFA) of 92sqm which equates to a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.46:1. The proposed development will have a GFA of 155 sqm resulting in an FSR of 0.79:1.

 

In accordance with council’s FSR controls there is no maximum floorspace requirement for dwelling houses on lots less than 300sqm which are assessed on merit.

 

The objectives of the FSR controls seek to ensure development is compatible with the scale and character of contributory dwellings in the conservation area and minimises amenity impacts to adjoining properties. The aspects are discussed as follows:

 

Scale and character

The first floor addition (as amended) sits 420mm below the existing tiled roof and is setback behind the ridgeline to reduce its visual impact when viewed from Earl Street. It is considered that the contemporary lightweight design which includes timber cladding, highlight windows and a flat metal roof will assist in reducing its bulk and scale when viewed from Earl Street. Furthermore, the floorspace proposed is similar to other dwellings at Nos. 45 and 43 Earl Street with an FSR of 0.8:1 and 0.76:1, respectively. The scale and character of the first floor addition is therefore acceptable.

 


Amenity Impacts

The highlight windows will mitigate any potential overlooking impacts to the adjoining property to the south at No. 51 Earl Street.

 

There will be no adverse overshadowing impacts to the adjoining properties to the south (see discussion below).

 

The proposed addition will be setback 1.35m from the common side boundary with No. 51 Earl Street which exceeds the minimum required setback of 900mm by 450mm.  The first floor addition therefore will not result in any adverse visual bulk or loss of views from adjoining properties. The amended proposal will not result in any significant adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

 

The proposed FSR is therefore considered to be acceptable.

 

Side Boundary Setback

 

The proposed ground level extension will have a nil setback to the southern side boundary with No. 51 Earl Street which represents a departure from Council’s minimum 900mm side setback control. The boundary wall will have a length of 7m and a height of 3.43m. The purpose of the side setback control is to ensure adequate building separation for access, landscaping, privacy, natural lighting and ventilation. 

 

The proposed full width extension will remove external access to the rear yard, however, the site enjoys secondary access from Castle Street.

 

The proposed development will provide 42 sqm of landscape area which represents a significant increase compared to the existing situation resulting in better amenity for occupants and improving the appearance of the site.

 

The planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Galea v Marrickville Council [2005] NSWLEC 113 is used to make an assessment of the reasonableness of the amended proposal, in terms of side setback. The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the amended proposal in accordance with the five (5) step process established in the proceedings.

 

1)     Is the street characterised by terrace housing?

 

Building to the boundary is likely to be appropriate in streets where the existing form of development is terrace houses or villa homes, i.e. where building to the boundary follows the existing pattern of development.

 

Comment: Earl Street and Castle Street are not characterised by terrace housing. 

 

2)     What is the height and length of the wall on the boundary?

 

        Short lengths of single storey walls (such as garages) are usually acceptable on       the boundary.

 

Comment: The southern boundary wall is 7m in length and approximately 3.4m in height.

 

3)    Has the applicant control over the adjoining site(s) or the agreement of their owners?

 

Where the applicant has control over the development of the adjoining sites or their owners agree to a wall on the common boundary, such walls are likely to be appropriate.

Comment: The applicant has no control over the adjoining site and the owner(s) of the adjoining sites have not objected other than the fence height should not change.

 

4)     What are the impacts on the amenity and/or development potential of adjoining sites?

 

Building to the boundary may be appropriate, even where the above tests are not answered favourably, provided it can be shown that a wall on the boundary does not diminish the amenity or the development potential of the adjoining site.

 

Comment: It is not considered that a development which complies with the side setback requirements would result in any substantial difference in terms of the visual amenity impacts as the southern external wall of the ground floor extension will be approximately 1.5m above the top of the existing boundary fence and therefore will not be visually intrusive as viewed from the southern adjoining dwelling. It is noted that a generous side setback of 1.35m is provided to the first floor addition above the ground level wall which exceeds council’s minimum requirement of 900mm by 450mm resulting in a reasonable level of daylight and ventilation being retained to No. 51 Earl Street.

 

The nil setback to the southern side boundary at ground level does not result in significant adverse amenity impacts to the neighbours at No. 51 Earl Street.

 

The non-compliance to the northern side boundary is unavoidable given the dwelling is one half of a semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposed nil setback to the southern boundary is considered to be reasonable.

 

5)    Are there arrangements in place for the maintenance of the wall or gutters?

 

   The question of maintenance should be considered at the time of the development application to avoid disputes later.

 

Comment: A condition is to be included with any consent requiring the owners of the subject dwelling to take full responsibility in maintaining the southern external wall.

 

Side and Rear Boundary Fencing

The subject site has a 1.8m timber fence along the southern side boundary adjoining No. 51 Earl Street. It is proposed to remove part of the fence towards the rear of the property to make way for the ground floor full width extension and provide a masonry wall of 2m in height on the boundary with No. 51 Earl Street adjoining the rear yard. This represents a non-compliance of 200mm however, the proposed masonry wall is considered to retain a reasonable level of visual amenity, solar access and privacy to the rear yard at No. 51 Earl Street. It is noted there is an existing pergola and screen planting at the rear of No. 51 Earl Street located on the boundary which partly obscures the boundary fence.

 

The existing masonry wall along the northern boundary of the rear yard is also proposed to be increased in height up to 2m. This also represents a non-compliance however, the impacts to the adjoining property at No. 47 Earl Street will be minimal given it adjoins an existing carport and is to the south of No. 47 Earl Street resulting in no overshadowing.

 

It is considered that the style and height of the proposed roller door and masonry fence is consistent with the eclectic character in Castle Street and will contribute positively to the streetscape of Castle Street.

Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate there will be some additional overshadowing of adjoining properties during the winter solstice. At 9:00am the proposed first floor addition will cast additional shadows on Castle Street. By midday the shadow cast will have moved further east, resulting in the majority of additional shadows falling on the roof of the adjoining pair of semi- detached dwellings at Nos. 51-53 Earl Street. However, there will be some additional shadow cast to the rear yard of those properties between 11:00am and midday during the winter solstice.  At 3:00pm the shadows cast by the first floor addition mainly fall on Earl Street.  

 

Due to the orientation of the site on an east-west axis, there will be an unavoidable degree of overshadowing to the southern adjoining property at Nos. 51-53 Earl Street.

 

Further, it is not considered that the overshadowing impact should be seen as a reason for refusing this proposal as the additional impact is a direct and natural consequence of the orientation of the site rather than an indication of an inappropriate design. Furthermore, the proposed first floor addition (which generates the additional shadows) complies with Council’s height and side setback controls.

 

The proposal is therefore acceptable in regards to overshadowing impacts.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development will provide two additional bedrooms and bathrooms at the first floor and an open plan living space at ground level. The subject site is located in a heritage conservation area and careful design consideration is required in relation to changes to the existing dwelling house. Concerns were raised by Council with the originally lodged design in relation to potential heritage impacts arising from the bulk and scale of the first floor addition. The applicant subsequently amended the proposal by reducing the size of the bedrooms at the first floor and increasing its setback behind the ridgeline and to the side boundary.  

 

The first floor addition will be 420mm below the existing tiled roof and its contemporary appearance will read as a secondary form. The flat roof design is located behind the ridge of the existing tiled roof providing sufficient separation to reduce its dominance on the original roof form. The proposed vertical timber cladding and band of highlight windows will also assist in reducing its perceived bulk and scale. The amended design is acceptable in terms of bulk and scale and is compatible with other similar dwellings in Earl Street.

 

The introduction of a step in the building at ground level will reduce the wall length along the common boundary of No. 51 Earl Street resulting in a reasonable level of amenity being retained for the occupants of No. 51 Earl Street.

 

The existing dwelling house currently has no landscape area. The proposed development will provide a significant increase the amount of landscape area resulting in better amenity for the occupants and an improved appearance of the site from the street. The open plan living spaces at ground level will provide superior amenity in terms of sunlight access and ventilation and provide a connection with the adjoining outdoor space.

 

The proposed development will not result in any significant adverse privacy or overshadowing impacts to the adjoining properties. The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable. It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to the imposition of standard 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. 61/2014 for demolition of existing carport, ground floor alterations and first floor addition to existing dwelling, new rear gate and alterations to rear wall, landscaping and associated works, at No. 49 Earl Street, Randwick subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 49 Earl Street , Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                10 June 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D50/14

 

 

Subject:                  3 Cairo Street, South Coogee (DA/573/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/573/2013

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of existing structures, construction of part 2/part 3 storey dwelling with garage to front, swimming pool to the rear and associated works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:                E Solomovic

Owner:                         I & P Robertson

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to the Planning Committee at request of Councilors Nash, Satvrinos, Roberts and Andrews.

 

1.        Proposal

 

The application seeks consent for demotion of the existing dwelling and construction of a part two (2), part three (3) storey dwelling, with swimming pool at the rear and associated works at 3 Cairo Street, South Coogee.

 

Garage

At the level of Cairo Street, the scheme proposes to excavate a double garage into the slope of the site, with plant rooms to the rear.

 

New Dwelling

At ground floor level, the scheme comprises kitchen, living, dining and family areas. A terrace is provided overlooking the Caro Street frontage and a covered outdoor deck is also attached at the rear fronting the private open space.

 

At first floor level the dwelling comprises three (3) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms and storage area. Small balcony is attached to the rear elevation.

 

External works

Various landscaping and retaining works are proposed across the site. An in-ground swimming pool is proposed within the rear open space, toward the eastern boundary of the site.  Boundary fencing up to 1800mm in height is detailed to east and west boundaries.

 

Description: Description: DSC08595

 

Description: DSC00968

Figure 1: The subject site, centre of frame, as viewed from Cairo Street.

Figure 2: The rear elevation of the existing dwelling at 3 Cairo Street.

 

Description: Description: Screen shot 2014-05-24 at 6

Figure 3: The Cairo Street streetscape viewed from the east of the subject site.

From left to right: Nos. 9, 7, 5, 3 and 1 Cairo Street.

2.        Application history

 

Council raised issue with a number of elements of the proposal on 11 February 2014, including:

 

·      Proposed height at roughly 12 metres has substantial impact on surrounds;

·      Redesign should comply with the 9.5 metre height limit. A Clause 4.6 variation is necessary should non- compliance occur;

·      Additional articulation necessary to aluminum clad west elevation;

·      Any raising of the building platform or filling of the site along common boundaries is not supported and as such, existing ground levels are to be generally retained;

·      Front, side and rear setback improvements are necessary in order to ensure consistency of built form and a reasonable view sharing outcome;

·      Privacy measures must discourage view down into windows and the rear open space of 5 Cairo Street;

·      Engineering issues relating to proposed public stair reconstruction;

·      Clarification of boundary fencing.

 

The application was amended on 26 February 2014. Amendments were inclusive of:

 

·      Reduced building height to 9.66 metres. No Clause 4.6 objection provided;

·      Shifting of the building to the rear by 750mm to increase front setback;

·      Delete upper floor front balcony;

·      Increase eastern side setback to garage;

·      Reduction in fill along side boundaries;

·      Replace solid front balustrades with glass balustrades;

·      Clarification of west elevation articulation, east elevation privacy louvres and fencing arrangements;

·      Deletion of works requiring moving the public stairs on Cairo Street.

 

Further to the assessment below, it is not considered the applicant has adequately responded to the issues raised by Council on 11 February 2014. The application is recommended for refusal.

 

Figure 4: The proposed front elevation of the original scheme, proposing 12 metres in height, now superseded.

Figure 5: Proposed front elevation as amended on 26 February 2014, proposing 9.66 metres in height.

 

3.        Site context

 

The site is described as Lot 5 in DP 1055, known as 3 Cairo Street, South Coogee. The subject site and those adjoining are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.

 

The site is located on the southern side of Cairo Street, at the intersection of Cairo and Garnett Streets. The site has a single frontage to Cairo Street. The parcel is of regular shape and oriented roughly north- south. The topography of the site falls to the north and east, such that the rear south- western corner of the site sits approximately five (5) metres above the front Cairo Street boundary.

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, Cairo boundary.

10.06m

407.8m2

Western, side boundary

40.54m

Eastern, side boundary

40.54m

Southern, rear boundary

10.06m

 

A part two (2), part three (3) storey dwelling is presently contained within the site. The upper floor of the existing dwelling is contained within a mansard roof form. Surrounding development is residential, consisting predominantly of large contemporary dwellings of up to three (3) storeys.

 

The existing building and those surrounding do not have any individual heritage significance within the provisions of RLEP 2012. A sandstone retaining wall, a listed heritage item with RLEP 2012, is located on the northern boundary of the site, within Council’s road reserve.

 

4.        Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the application between 9 and 23 September 2013 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

·      15 Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      13 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      11A Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      4 Garnet Street, South Coogee;

·      138 Beach Street, Coogee;

·      5/11 Hill Street, Coogee;

·      2/6 Mount Street, Coogee;

·      25 Denning Street, Coogee;

·      7 Garnet Street, South Coogee;

·      15 Garnet Street, South Coogee;

·      11 Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      7 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      17- 19 Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      11 Liguria Street, South Coogee;

·      1 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      5 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      Architects Ink on behalf of 5 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      A Square Planning on behalf of 5 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      Coogee Precinct Committee.

 

Issue

Comment

Built form:

·    Building height and wall height of 12 metres are excessive;

·    Concern front, side and rear setbacks are insufficient;

·    Rear pergola extends is a further three (3) metres beyond the building;

·    Floor to ceiling heights are excessive;

·    Only limited deep soil landscaping is provided at the front of the site;

·    The length of the western façade is unarticulated and greater than 12 metres in length.

·    The amount of fill along boundaries is extensive.

 

 

It should be noted that the proposal was amended on 26 February 2014 in effort to address these issues.

Regardless, outstanding concerns with the built form are discussed below, particularly in respect of height, wall height, setback, floor to ceiling heights and levels of fill. The application has been recommended for refusal due to the summation of these issues.

Landscaping across the site is considered to be satisfactory and is not an issue pertaining to the refusal recommendation.

 

Character:

·    Concern the building is not sympathetic to the existing streetscape and foreshore. The building will set an undesirable precedent.

Despite amendments of 26 February 2014, the proposal is considered to require improvement in respect of scale and levels to effectively integrate with its context. The proposal has not been supported by this assessment.

View sharing:

·    The excessive bulk and height of the building will cause view loss;

 

·    The proposal will obstruct ocean views from:

1 Cairo Street;

11 Denning Street;

15 Denning Street;

23 Denning Street

25 Denning Street;

Public park above Cairo Street;

 

·    The additional impact of the approval 17 Garnet Street upon 1 Cairo Street has not been considered.

 

View sharing is discussed in the key issues section, below.

 

The proposal was amended on 26 February, omitting a large roof form that was cause for initial view sharing concern. Properties in Denning Street will not see any material impact under the amended scheme.

 

The impact upon 1 Cairo Street has been discussed in detail below, with regard to the approved development at 17 Garnet Street.

Privacy:

·    Concern over visual privacy impact from east elevation windows and front and rear terraces to:

5 Cairo Street;

23 Denning Street;

25 Denning Street;

 

·    Operable louvres are insufficient to provide privacy;

 

·    Concern over acoustic privacy impact to:

1 Cairo Street;

5 Cairo Street.

 

Privacy impact to properties in Denning Street is not considered to be significant.

Visual privacy is discussed in further detail below and remains an outstanding concern with the application. Notably, east elevation openings have not been adequately addressed by the applicant with regard to louvres and views to 5 Cairo Street.

Front and rear terraces are considered to pose a generally acceptable privacy impact. Topography and built form amount to potential cross viewing from these elements that are consistent with adjoining circumstances and are to be expected. 

Noise issues related to plant and equipment could be addressed via standard conditions.

Solar access:

·    The proposal will obstruct morning solar access to 1 Cairo Street;

·    The proposal will obstruct afternoon solar access to 5 Cairo Street;

·    The western side setback of 5 Cairo is used for clothes drying. This will be prevented by the proposal;

·    Boundary fencing arrangements are excessive in height.

 

The orientation of these sites is north- south and as such, the proposal does not prevent either neighbour from obtaining the necessary three (3) hours.

The proposal complies with Council’s solar access requirements.

Traffic & parking:

·    Concern the proposed double garage is inappropriate for site width;

 

·    Suggest the garage have additional setback from the street for pedestrian safety;

 

·    Concern over impact upon Cairo Street stairs;

 

·    Concern that construction will disrupt access to Garnet Street.

 

Amended plans of 26 February 2014 reduced the prominence of the garage, recessed the entry roughly 900mm and minimised amendment to the public stairs.

Council’s Development Engineers have reviewed the proposal and did not raise issue with respect to safety and manoeuvrability.

The garage is considered to be consistent with similar double garage examples in Cairo Street and is generally acceptable.

Construction Traffic Management around the site could be feasibly regulated through conditions.

Other:

·    Property value;

 

·    Concern materials and colours including aluminium cladding and louvres will reflect light and heat;

 

·    The amount of excavation necessitates a Geotech Report;

 

·    Concern over stormwater implications;

 

·    Request clarification of proposed boundary fencing and retaining works.

Property value is not a relevant planning consideration.

The material quality and articulation of the development is inappropriate, particularly in regards to reflectivity.

Standard conditions would instead require a dilapidation report be prepared in the instance of excavation in the zone of influence, in order to protect the footings of adjoining properties. Stormwater implications can also be feasibly controlled via conditions. In lieu of the recommendation of refusal, these conditions have not been pursued.

Clarification of fencing arrangements was provided in amendments of 11 February 2014.

 

The amendments of 26 February 2014 were re-notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification between 14 and 28 March 2014. The following submissions were received in response:

·      4 Garnet Street, South Coogee;

·      5 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      Architects Ink on behalf of 5 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      A Square Planning on behalf of 5 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      1 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      2/6 Mount Street, Coogee;

·      7 Cairo Street, South Coogee;

·      11 Liguria Street, South Coogee;

 

Issue

Comment

Planning controls:

·    Concern over various non compliances with the planning controls;

·    The proposal is not accompanied by a Clause 4.6 objection.

 

 

Non- compliances with the proposal and in particular the absence of a Clause 4.6 variation are noted. The application is recommended for refusal.

Built form:

·    Building height and wall height remain too high;

·    Concern front, side and rear setbacks are insufficient. Rear setback encroaches on established building line;

·    The garage should be further reduced in height and width;

·    Concern over changing of levels along side boundaries.

 

Outstanding concerns with the built form are discussed below, particularly in respect of height and setbacks. The application has been recommended for refusal due to the combined effect of these non-compliances.

The garage is considered to be consistent with similar double garage examples in Cairo street and is generally acceptable.

 

Character:

·    Concern the proposal will adversely impact upon the topography, landscape, streetscape and surrounding built form.

 

The proposal should be reduced in scale to effectively integrate with its surrounds.

View sharing:

·      The amended proposal will still obstruct ocean views from 1 Cairo Street.

 

The view sharing impact upon 1 Cairo Street has been discussed in the key issues section, below.

Solar access:

·    The proposal will reduce light and ventilation and obstruct morning solar access to 1 Cairo Street ;

·    The proposal will reduce light and ventilation and obstruct afternoon solar access to 5 Cairo Street;

·    Overshadowing of clothes drying area in western passage of 5 Cairo Street;

·    Proposed boundary fence will reduce light ventilation to 5 Cairo;

·    Elevational shadows have not been submitted.

 

The orientation of these sites is north- south and as such, the proposal does not prevent either neighbour from obtaining the necessary three (3) hours.

The proposal meets with Council’s solar access requirements.

Privacy:

·    Proposed windows and front and rear terraces will overlook 5 Cairo Street. Louvres are insufficient and must be directed away from bedrooms of 5 Cairo ;

·    Concern over acoustic privacy due to plant and lift noise.

 

Privacy is discussed in further detail below and remains an outstanding concern with the application.

East elevation openings not been adequately addressed by the applicant.

The front and rear terraces are considered to pose a generally acceptable privacy impact. Topography and built form amount to potential cross viewing from these elements that are consistent with adjoining circumstances and are to be expected. 

Acoustic issues could be addressed via standard conditions.

Other:

·    Concern colours, materials and finishes are inconsistent with the character of the locality;

·    Object to 1800mm fencing plus fill along east and west  boundaries;

·    No information about retaining walls is provided.

 

 

Material quality, articulation and the extent of fill are matters addressed below.

 

 

5.        Key Issues

 

5.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012)

RLEP 2012 commenced on 15 February 2013 and given lodgment of the subject application on 4 September 2013, is the primary planning instrument for the subject application.

 

The following table considers the proposed development having regard to the zoning provisions and development standards contained in RLEP 2012 that are of relevance to the subject development application:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

The site is zoned Low Density Residential R2.

Yes.

Permissible under the proposed zoning?

Yes.

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.75:1

0.58:1

 

Yes.

 

Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

9.66m

 

No, see below.

5.1.1   Building height –Clause 4.3

At its highest point fronting Cairo Street, the amended proposal is inclusive of a variation to the height control of RLEP 2012, proposing 9.66 metres. The proposal is not accompanied by an objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, a statutory requirement in the event of any variation to the standard.

 

The applicant was given opportunity to remove the height variation or provide a valid objection through Clause 4.6 of the LEP, on 11 February 2014. While the variation could feasibly be deleted via condition of consent, the combined effect of the other non- compliances are considered to be fatal to the application.

 

The proposal is recommended for refusal based on these non- compliances and the absence of a valid Clause 4.6 variation.

 

5.2    View sharing – Section 5.6 – Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

i)        The location and design of dwellings and outbuildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

 

ii)              In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas (such as living room, dining room, lounge and kitchen) should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms. 

 

iii)       Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain.

 

iv)      The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

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

 

vi)      Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the DA.

 

Concern was raised during notification with regard to view sharing. Concern originated from a number of properties across Cairo Street and Denning Street, as indicated in the figures below. A number of properties impacted by view sharing were inspected by the assessing officer to inform the below assessment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: The context of the view sharing issue in relation to the coastline.

Figure 7: Location of sites concerned with view sharing, in relation to the subject site.

 

The planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 identifies a number of steps to qualitatively assess view sharing and is addressed in the following sections.

 

Principles 1 and 2: Assess views to be affected, and consider from what part of the property views are obtained.

 


View sharing from properties in Denning Street

 

The following properties in Denning Street raised issues of view loss as a result of the original proposal:

 

·      11 Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      11A Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      15 Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      17- 19 Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      25 Denning Street, South Coogee;

·      Garnett Street Road Reserve (13 Denning Street, South Coogee).

 

The initial scheme comprised a roof form that achieved up to 12 metres in height. A comparison of initial and amended schemes is shown in Figures 4 and 5, above. The amended scheme of 26 February 2014 deleted the roof form, reducing height to 9.66 metres. The amended roof form achieves height similar to that of the existing ridge at 3 Cairo Street.

 

All the above properties were notified of the amended proposal between 14 and 28 March 2014. None of these properties raised view- sharing concerns with the amended scheme notified.

 

The properties in Denning Street sit significantly above the level of Cairo Street, obtaining view above the existing ridge. The amended scheme details a building that will achieve height commensurate of the existing ridge, visible below in Figures 8 & 9, albeit of greater length and wall height. The above properties in Denning Street are not expected to have any substantial view loss from the amended scheme.

 

Anticipated view loss

With the deletion of the roof form proposed in the original scheme, the amended proposal is expected to have negligible impact upon the existing views from dwellings or from the public domain in Denning Street.

 

These properties are not discussed further in the context of the view sharing principle.

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 8: View from the ground floor of 17- 19 Denning Street, which sits significantly above the subject site.

Figure 9: View from 25 Denning Street, which sits significantly above the subject site.

 

1 Cairo Street, South Coogee

 

The dwelling at 1 Cairo Street is the western neighbour to the subject site and contains an aging part one (1), part two (2) storey dwelling.

 

The dwelling presently obtains views to two (2) ground floor sunrooms, located at front and rear of the dwelling. Views from each sunroom are oriented to the north-east and east, respectively. The views are available at both standing and sitting positions. Views are achieved in the following manner;

 

 

 

Figure 10: Context of the view sharing issue in relation to the coastline.

Figure 11: Aerial context of development in Cairo Street. Boundaries of 1 & 3 Cairo Street highlighted.

 

Figure 12: Detailed context of the views obtained to 1 Cairo Street.

 

Specific areas of 1 Cairo Street likely to be impacted are discussed below, referenced as follows and depicted in Figure 12 above:

 

·      W1 – North elevation window of northern, front sunroom;

·      W2 – East elevation window of northern, front sunroom;

·      W3 – East elevation window of the southern, rear sunroom.

 

Northern, front sunroom views – Windows W1 & W2

 

The front sunroom of 1 Cairo Street is oriented north and has windows with both north and east aspects (W1 & W2, respectively). The room is accessed at ground floor level, however with the slope of the land becomes elevated above ground to its eastern side. The most notable views of the dwelling are obtained to this room.

 

The window at W1 presently obtains view over the front, northern boundary to Wedding Cake Island, land-sea interface at Burrows Park , Trenerry Reserve and the horizon. Views can be classed as ionic and intact from most positions in the room, at both standing and sitting level. Development on the eastern side of Garnet Street presently hems the view. The approved development at 17 Garnet Street, discussed below, will pose additional obstruction to present views once completed.

 

The window at W2 presently obtains view over its eastern, shared side boundary and above the front setback of the existing building at 3 Cairo Street. The view is available as the present building at 3 Cairo Street has more generous front setback than both 1 and 5 Cairo Street. Iconic and intact views to Wedding Cake Island and the horizon are available at standing and sitting positions, generally available when immediately beside the window only (Figure 16). 

 

Figures from the view sharing assessment of 17 Garnet Street have been utilised below in the discussion of these windows, in order to ascertain cumulative impact. 

 

 

Description: Description: DSC00738

 

Figure 13: Front sunroom view obtained from north elevation (center and left of frame) and east elevation (right of frame) windows.

Southern, rear sunroom views – Window W3

 

The rear sunroom of 1 Cairo Street has primary south elevation, however obtains views from a large window on its secondary, eastern aspect (W3). The room is accessed at ground floor level, however with the slope of the land becomes elevated above ground to it’s eastern side to allow view above 3 Cairo Street.

 

The window at W3 presently obtains view over it’s eastern, side boundary and above the rear setback of the existing building at 3 Cairo Street. The view is available through a corridor of existing development and vegetation.

 

Horizon views are available from most positions in the room, at both standing and sitting level (Figure 14).

 

 

Description: Description: DSC00720

 

Figure 14: Rear sunroom view obtained to the east, where the proposal is likely to obstruct views. The existing building at 3 Cairo Street can be seen left of frame.

 

 


Principle 3: Assess the extent of the impact.

 

1 Cairo Street, South Coogee                                                                           

 

W1: North elevation window of northern sunroom, at standing position

No view loss is anticipated to occur to this window as a result of the proposed development.

 

 

 

Figure 15: Views from north elevation window. Approved development at 17 Garnet Street shown in red. The proposed dwelling will not impact this view. 

 

W2: East elevation window of northern sunroom, at standing position

Severe view loss is expected to occur to this window as a result of the proposed development.

 

The proposal seeks to reduce the front setback presently provided at 3 Cairo Street, eventuating in severe view loss occurring to this side elevation window. It should be noted the proposed front setback will reflect the alignment of setbacks established to both 1 and 5 Cairo Street.

 

Significant reduction in the angle at which easterly views can be obtained, as shown in the diagram in Figure 12, is expected. Roughly 50- 60% of the view span presently available to W2 will be compromised, when viewed from a position centrally along the window (Figure 16).

 

A majority of this obstruction comprises view to the horizon, however will also compromise presently intact view of Wedding Cake Island from most positions. It is likely only the northern extent of this window will retain this iconic view, in it’s present form.

 

The impact occurs across a side boundary and the front setback of 3 Cairo Street. The impact is not considered avoidable without unreasonable restriction to 3 Cairo Street.

 

Opportunity to marginally improve the angle with which the view to W2 is restricted to Wedding Cake Island is available, through deletion of a proposed blade wall on the front façade. While this amendment would unlikely avoid severe to devastating classification of view loss to this window, it would pose positive improvement to view angles available to the subject window.

 

 

 

Figure 16: Views from east elevation window. Approved development at 17 Garnet Street shown in red. The proposed dwelling will obstruct the majority of this view. 

 

*Cumulative impact with approved dwelling at 17 Garnett Street

The proposed development in conjunction with that of the approved development at 17 Garnet Street will have effect of significantly hemming the present view available from most positions on the eastern elevation window.

 

Once the development at 17 Garnet Street is complete, as the figures predict in red, it is likely the present intact view of Wedding Cake Island will comprise broken view or glimpses, where view lines remain possible between the proposed development at 3 Cairo Street and the approved development at 17 Garnet Street.

 

It is considered this outcome is unavoidable in the circumstances. The approval of development at 17 Garnet Street does not give reasonable grounds to prevent 3 Cairo Street matching the predominant front setback already established at both 1 and 5 Cairo Street.

 

 

W3: East elevation window of southern sunroom, at standing position

Severe view loss is expected to occur to this window as a result of the proposed development.

 

The proposal seeks to reduce the rear setback presently provided at 3 Cairo Street, eventuating in severe view loss occurring to this side elevation window. The proposed two (2) storey rear setback seeks to reflect the single storey rear alignment established to 1 Cairo Street, which sits on higher ground.

 

The entirety of the horizon view presently available through a corridor to W3 will be compromised by this aspect of the proposal (Figure 14).

 

The extent of the corridor through which the view is obtained is restricted by development and vegetation in the present circumstances. Whilst the view is obtained across a side boundary and of a lower quality, it is considered that the excessive length of the proposed building results in an unreasonable impact on the view from this window. The reduction in length of the upper storey of the proposal will improve the view lines from the subject window.

 

 

Principle 4: Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

Where views are obtained over the eastern side boundary shared with 3 Cairo Street, the proposed dwelling at No. 1 Cairo Street would see loss of a majority of existing views obtained to front and rear sunrooms under the proposal. It is noted this dwelling would retain views to the north that will not see any impact from the proposed development.

 

It is considered that amendments to the proposal could be made to provide a significant improvement in the view impact to No. 1 Cairo Street and would also address the excessive length of the proposed building. These include:

 

1.  Deletion of a blade wall on the front elevation of the building;

2.  Reduction in the rear extent of the upper floor of the building

 

The above amendments would demonstrate a more skillful design and in conjunction with addressing issues of height, bulk and scale would provide for a more suitable form of development on the site.

 

5.3    Wall height

The DCP identifies that dwellings on sloping sites may achieve eight (8) metres in wall height and anticipates that some variation in the wall height standard may eventuate due to site topography.

 

The proposed eastern elevation achieves a maximum wall height of approximately 9.4 metres. The west elevation of the building achieves 8.08 metres in wall height. The issue of height and the landform was raised with the applicant on 11 February 2014.

 

Regardless of topography, the wall height proposed is excessive and eventuates in part due to overly generous floor to ceiling heights exceeding 2700mm, being provided throughout the building, including the garage. There is no valid reason why the proposal should be seeking to vary the wall height control on the western, higher side, of the site.

 

Reduction in the proposed floor to ceiling heights to 2400mm, at garage and 2700m to upper levels, would allow to a potential wall height far closer to the eight (8) metre control and lesser impact of bulk and scale upon the streetscape and adjoining properties.

 

In its present form, the proposal is not considered to present a satisfactory outcome with regard to wall height and Clause 3.2 of the DCP.

 

5.4      Setbacks

5.4.1   Eastern side setbacks – Section 3.3.2 - Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

The proposal employs a 1500mm side setback to the external walls of the eastern elevation. Two (2) large modules of floor to ceiling louvers protrude the setback, sitting 1200mm off the eastern boundary.

 

When viewed externally, the louvres span the majority of the eastern façade and contribute to the appearance of external building bulk closer to the boundary. At first floor level, it is considered the louvres unnecessarily protrude into the required side setback. While this protrusion does not strictly amount to variation of the 1500mm control, the louvers are contrary to the objectives of the setback controls, seeking to allow adequate separation between buildings.

 

When combined with the above discussed wall height non-compliance, what could be interpreted as a 1200mm setback at first floor level is considered to amount to an unreasonable impact of bulk and scale upon 5 Cairo Street and within the streetscape.

 

The proposal is not considered satisfactory in respect of the objectives of Section 3.3.

 

5.4.2   Rear setbacks – Section 3.3.3 - Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The DCP identifies that rear setbacks should reflect the existing predominant rear setback line of the urban block and be provided in balancing views, privacy and solar access to neighbouring sites.

 

Whilst the proposal meets the minimum rear setbacks requirements, the DCP requires increased rear setbacks in order to be consistent with the predominant rear setback line and to achieve view sharing.

 

The proposed rear setback seeks to match that of the single storey extent of 1 Cairo Street with two (2) storey built form and provide a balcony with blade wall that extends beyond the alignment of 1 Cairo Street. The proposal extends significantly beyond the rear extent of 5 Cairo Street.

 

It is considered the rear extent of the building in terms of its height and bulk beyond the rear building alignment of 1 Cairo Street does not adequately respond to surrounding built form or the falling topography of the adjoining properties.

 

The rear extent of the proposal in conjunction with wall height breaches results in excessive bulk and scale and privacy. The impact arises predominantly out of the proposed building length, which has an overbearing effect on No. 1 Cairo Street.

 

A reasonable compromise would involve reduction in the rear extent of the proposed first floor to reflect a balance of 1 and 5 Cairo Street and pose substantial benefit to reducing the above impacts. It is considered this amendment, in conjunction with others discussed in this report, is beyond the scope of what could be imposed by conditions of consent.

 

As proposed, the scheme is not considered to provide satisfactory response to the rear setback controls of Section 3.3.3.

 

5.4.3   Building length, Materials and Finishes – Sections 4.1 & 4.5 - Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The DCP identifies that side elevation sections should be not more than 12 metres in length and effectively divided into modules to create visual interest.

 

The application seeks to reduce both front and rear setbacks provided to the existing building, eventuating in an overall building length of 17.9 metres. The west elevation is clad entirely in aluminum panels, with a split for a window provided centrally within the elevation.

 

The excessive length and height of the proposed building will have an overbearing effect on 1 Cairo Street. Minimal articulation and modulation of the built form is provided to avoid issues of unrelieved mass to the west. The aluminium cladding is also likely to eventuate in issues of reflectivity to adjoining sites.

 

The proposed length of the building and lack of articulation contribute to a west elevation that is monolithic in it’s massing and fails to meet the objectives set out in Sections 4.1 and 4.5 of the DCP.

 

5.4.4   Earthworks – Section 4.6 - Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP)

The scheme continues to propose unnecessary fill along common boundaries, an issue initially raised with the applicant on 11 February 2014.

 

The amount of fill proposed does not respond to the falling topography of these sites and will likely eventuate in privacy issues to adjoining neighbours. Boundary fencing of substantial height will also be necessary, thereby increasing amenity impacts to adjoining properties.

 

It is considered the amended proposal remains unacceptable in respect of fill and is not supported in relation to the objectives of Section 4.6 of the DCP.

 

5.4.5   Privacy – Section 5.3 - Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

On 11 February 2014 Council requested the applicant provide further detail of privacy measures being provided to protect the eastern neighbour. The response from the applicant was that the louvers would be fixed at 45 degrees.

 

The east elevation of the proposal features a substantial amount of glazing, allowing views to be obtained from the north through to south-east across ground and first floor levels. The design is inclusive of large spans of louvres that direct view to the north- east, when fixed 45 degrees.

 

It is noted that privacy impacts to eastern neighbours is a natural implication of the site orientation, topography and desire for views to these sites.

 

Notwithstanding this, the design makes negligible effort to mitigate privacy impact.

When fixed at 45 degrees, living areas and bedrooms at ground and first floor level will have view directly into bedrooms of the eastern neighbour at 5 Cairo Street from floor to ceiling openings, specifically:

 

·      Elevated view lines from the front ground and first floor living areas and bedroom of the proposal are of significant privacy issue to a front bedroom window of 5 Cairo Street;

·      The length of the proposed building is such that proposed first floor bedrooms at the rear of the dwelling will have elevated view into rear, primary elevation bedroom windows of 5 Cairo Street.

 

It is considered the applicant has given insufficient consideration to the issue when raised by Council. The proposal is not considered to present a satisfactory outcome with regard to visual privacy and Clause 5.3 of the DCP in respect of this component.

 

Proposed front and rear terraces were also raised as privacy issue during assessment, however are not considered to pose any unreasonable or unexpected privacy implications in the context of surrounding development and topography.

 

5.4.6   Clause 6.7 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area – Section B10 - Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The LEP and DCP requires that development in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area be of high quality design that is sensitive and sympathetic to the natural landform, colours and landscape character of the foreshore.

 

The excessive length, height and bulk of the proposed building will have a substantial prominence in the foreshore that is unnecessary and avoidable. The proposal seeks to change levels along common boundaries that are not sympathetic to the natural landform. The extensive use of aluminum cladding serves to provide little articulation or visual interest, particularly to the west elevation. The use of this material across the building is likely to cause glare issues to surrounds.

 

The combined effect of these issues amount to a proposal that is not considered appropriate in the context of the foreshore scenic protection area and is not supported against the objectives of  the LEP and Section B10 of the DCP.

 

6.    Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 17 July 2012, 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

$897,820.00

1.0%

$8978.20

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development poses a number of concerns with respect to the objectives and controls of the relevant planning policies.

 

The application is not accompanied by an objection under Clause 4.6 of the LEP to justify variation of the 9.5 metre height limit. The building proposed is considered to pose a number of avoidable impacts to the character of the streetscape, the foreshore scenic protection area and adjoining dwellings.

 

The applicant has been advised of these concerns within the assessment process and given reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues.  It is considered that the extent of conditions that would be necessary to alleviate outstanding issues is beyond what could be contemplated by conditions of consent.

 

The application is recommended for refusal, based on the reasons identified in the schedule below.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses consent to Development Application No. 573/2013 for demolition of existing structures, construction of part two (2), part three (3) storey dwelling with garage to front, swimming pool to the rear and associated works., at No. 3 Cairo Street, Coogee, pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal exceeds the maximum height standard of 9.5 metres specified in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The applicant has not provided a valid request for exception pursuant to Clause 4.6, demonstrating the application of the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances;

 

2.     The scheme proposes an excessive wall height that eventuates in unreasonable bulk and scale and fails meet the objectives for Building Height set out in Clause 3.2 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

3.     The scheme proposes insufficient eastern side and rear setback that fails meet the objectives for Setbacks set out in Clause 3.3 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

4.     The scheme proposes a built form that does not adequately respond to it’s topographical and built form context and fails to meet the objectives and controls of Building Design set out in Clause 4.1 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

5.     The scheme does not meet the view sharing requirements set out in Clause 5.6 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential

 

6.     The scheme proposes extensive cladding in aluminum that fails to meet the objectives and controls of Colours, materials a finishes set out in Clause 4.5 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

7.     The scheme proposes an unnecessary extent of backfilling along common boundaries that fails to meet the objectives and controls of earthworks set out in Clause 4.6 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

8.     The scheme proposes an eastern elevation that will have direct view into adjoining bedrooms and that fails to meet the objectives and controls for visual privacy set out in Clause 5.3 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

9.     The scheme proposes built form and finishing to the development that fails to meet the objectives and controls for the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area set out in Part B10 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Cairo Street, South Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                10 June 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D51/14

 

 

Subject:                  10 Victory Street, Clovelly - DA/72/2013/A

Folder No:                   DA/72/2013/A

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification of approved development to increase size of windows adjacent to front courtyard, relocation of front entry gate, increase width of garage door, alterations to front wall, extend upper terrace landscaping to boundary, new wire balustrade to lower terrace  

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                Dr. Mike Lambros

Owner:                         Dr. Mike Lambros

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This section 96 modification application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original development application was determined by Council at the Ordinary Council meeting on 17 September 2013. 

 

The proposal

 

The subject 96 application seeks to modify the approved development by:

·      Amend condition 2(b) to increase the height of the vertical slotted windows adjacent to the front courtyard.

·      Amend condition 3 to relocate the front entry gate adjacent to the garage door opening. 

·      Delete condition 4 regarding the landscape treatment of the ‘front terrace’ and ‘lower terrace’ areas. 

·      Amend condition 6 and 7 regarding the reconstruction of the front sandstone retaining wall

·      Delete the public staircase leading from the pedestrian footpath to Victory Street.

·      Increase the width of the garage entry from 4 metres to 4.5 metres.

 

The original consent was for the demolition of the existing structures, construction of new 3 level dwelling with garage with trafficable terrace above, swimming pool and cabana to rear, wade pool to side of dwelling and associated works.

 

Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 100 in DP 1074941, No. 10 Victory Street, Clovelly, and is located on the western side of the street, to the south of its intersection with Clovelly Road.

 

The site comprises two components as follows:

 

·      The main part of the site constitutes a Torrens title component located immediately to the west of the elevated public walkway, where the existing double-storey dual occupancy is situated. It has a rectangular shape, with a frontage width of 12.19m to the footpath and a depth of 38.375m to 38.43m.

 

·      The Victory Street road reserve in between the subject Torrens titled land and the road has been subdivided into two Stratums.

 

The Stratums have a frontage width of 12.36m to the street and a depth of 15.575m.

 

The lower Stratum forms part of the site and is partially underground. The extent of this Stratum is limited from RL8.3 to RL13.0, with the exception of a 1-metre wide service easement that runs parallel to and approximately 4m from the Torrens title component, which occurs from RL11.7 onwards. The Stratum component presently accommodates a single garage and a sandstone block retaining wall. Refer to diagrams below.

 

In effect, the garden areas to the east of the elevated footpaths (which is above RL13.0) and the service easement are owned by Council. Any future underground car park and basement storey within the lower Stratum will be privately owned. The ownership of any staircase linking the Victory Street carriageway to the elevated footpath will be split between Council (above RL13.0) and the private party (between RL8.3 and RL13.0).

 

The site has a combined land area of 660.8m2.

 

Submissions

The application was notified from 19 February to 5 March 2014 in accordance with the Randwick DCP 2013. The following submissions were received at the conclusion of the public consultation process:

 

The issues raised in the submissions are addressed as follows:

 

4 Victory Street, Clovelly

Issues

Comments

The objector requests that the applicant re-use existing sandstone blocks in reconstructing the front sandstone retaining wall to ensure it matches the original wall. 

Noted. Condition nos. 6 and 7 have been included to ensure that existing sandstone blocks are to be re-used wherever possible for the reconstruction of the sandstone retaining wall.

The upper stratum should be designed in a manner which is consistent with the adjoining premises at nos. 4, 6 and 12 Victory Street which include an upper and lower terrace to accommodate the change in levels.

Noted. Refer to Key Issues: Terrace Height and Landscape Treatment.

The public staircase should not be removed and be maintained for public access to provide accessibility to the Clovelly foreshore. 

Noted. Refer to Key Issues: Public Staircase for more details.

The objector requests that any pedestrian measurements taken of the public staircase should be taken during summer seasonal periods.

Council has not undertaken any pedestrian measurements of the public staircase. It is recommended that the public staircase be retained as part of the Section 96 modification.  

 

8 Victory Street, Clovelly

Issues

Comments

The removal of the public staircase between the pedestrian footpath and Victory Street will contribute to a poor planning precedent.

Noted. Refer to Key Issues: Public Staircase for more details.

 

Key Issues

 

Public staircase:

The proposed section 96 modification seeks to delete the public staircase rather than relocate it on the northern portion of the stratum lot. The deletion of the public staircase is not supported given it is a key contributory element of the existing streetscape and forms part of a series of public staircases which adjoins nos. 4, 6, 8, 10 and 14 Victory Street. It is considered that the deletion of the public staircase is not in keeping with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone in that the proposal does not recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape or contribute to the desired future character of the area. The Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 also includes specific aims on promoting walkable and livable communities within the Randwick Local Government Area. The relevant aims of the plan include:

 

(2) The particular aims of this plan are as follows:

 

(a)  To foster a livable city that is accessible, safe and healthy with quality public spaces and attractive neighbourhoods and centres,

(d) To achieve a high standard of design in the private and public domain that enhances the quality of life of the community,

(e) To promote sustainable transport, public transport use, walking and cycling. 

 

The modifications to delete the public staircase will reduce the public accessibility between the pedestrian footpath and the Clovelly foreshore areas. The removal of the public staircase will not promote the aims of the LEP and will detract from the accessibility and quality of the public domain. The applicants justification that public access will be adequately serviced by other existing staircases at nos. 4, 6, 8, 10 and 14 (as detailed within the statement of environmental effects) is irrelevant given that deletion of the public staircase would result in an undesirable planning precedent and further reduce opportunities for public access. The applicant also submitted supporting documentation which included a pedestrian count on the number of the residents/users that entered and exited the subject staircase during a weekend period. However, no explanatory notes have been provided on how to interpret the data or any information on the methodology and how the survey was conducted for that matter. In addition to this, the results were recorded during mid-autumn on the 26th and 27th of April 2014. This is not considered to be a true reflection of the levels of pedestrian activity over different seasonal periods.

 

Finally, the proposal does not comply with Section 79C(e) having regard to the public interest given access for the general public is reduced and does not contribute positively to the public domain.

 

Vertical slotted windows adjacent to front courtyard:

The modifications include an increase to the height of the vertical slotted windows to 2100mm on the eastern wall of the garage adjacent to the front courtyard. Condition no. 2(b) currently reads as follows:

 

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

 

a)    The following walls must be constructed with coarse texture sandstone claddings / blocks:

 

·          Front wall of the garage facing and abutting the carriageway of Victory Street;

·          Northern side wall of the garage facing the entry courtyard / bin store area; and

·          Eastern wall of the garage behind the planter box within the entry courtyard / bin store area.

 

The claddings / blocks must be made of natural sandstones. No artificial stones are allowed.

 

b)     The vertical slotted windows on the eastern wall of the garage behind the planter box within the entry courtyard / bin store must have a height of not more than 1500mm, as measured from the finished floor level of the courtyard.

 

c)    The new dividing fence between the front yards of the proposed development and No. 8 Victory Street to the north is to be re-designed in the following manner:

 

·      The uppermost 1000mm of the fence must be constructed with obscured / translucent glazing.

·      The first 900mm from the front property boundary may be constructed with masonry.

 

d)    The rear boundary wall must be stepped so that it does not exceed 2200mm in height, as measured above the existing ground levels.

 

e)    The balustrades to the northern balcony on the first floor level must be constructed with obscured / translucent glazing.

 

f)     No air conditioning condenser units are permitted to be installed on the roof, or on the front elevation of the dwelling.

 

g)    The reflectivity index of glazing used in the development must not be more than 20%.

 

h)    The planter box within the entry forecourt / bin store area is to be planted with appropriate shrubbery that is suitable to the coastal environment.

 

The applicant has outlined within the statement of environmental effects that the height of the approved windows in addition to the closed garage door does not provide sufficient natural light into the workshop area. However, the increase to the height of the 300mm wide eastern facing slot windows will not improve direct solar access to the workshop area which is setback approximately 10 metres from these windows and it is likely that any additional solar access will fall to the garage area. In addition to this, the screening measures including the planting of mature trees in front of the windows and new hedge planting behind the reconstructed heritage wall will further exacerbate any direct solar access into these areas. Consequently, given the proposal will not result in any improvement to direct solar access to the workshop area and the slot windows at 1500mm (as measured from the finished floor level of the courtyard) will conserve the heritage significance of the reconstructed sandstone wall it is recommended that condition no. 2(b) remain unchanged.

 

Terrace height and landscape treatment:

The applicant seeks to amend condition no.4 of the development consent by installing a new wire balustrade to the ‘lower terrace’ with landscape planting and deleting the requirements of extending the eastern retaining wall to the south. Condition 4 currently reads as follows:

 

4.       The proposed “lower terrace” is to be replaced by an unfenced, non-accessible area with mass shrubbery planting, in order to improve consistency with the landscaped area treatment of other recently completed developments in Victory Street. 

 

The eastern retaining wall to the upper terrace (denoted as “front terrace” on the drawings) is to be extended to the south in accordance with the markings in red on the approved drawings, in order to enclose the “lower terrace”. The topmost point of the extended retaining wall is to be no less than RL13.90. A maintenance staircase of not more than 1m in width may be constructed to provide maintenance access from the “front terrace” to the “lower terrace”.

 

Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

The proposed section 96 modifications are not supported by Council’s Heritage Planning Officer given the proposed wire balustrade and hedge will contribute to the overall height of the structure and will not be compatible with the immediately adjacent garage structure at no. 12 Victory Street. In addition to this, the landscaping treatment to the ‘lower terrace’ is inconsistent with the landscape treatments of the lower terrace areas of nos. 4, 6 and 12 Victory Street which contain dense shrubbery and designed to be non-trafficable areas.

 

Condition no. 4 was included as part of the original consent to extend the retaining wall and associated balustrade from the upper terrace and enclose the lower terrace to be a non-trafficable area. The requirement that the lower terrace be replaced by an unfenced, non-accessible area with mass shrubbery will be consistent with the lower terrace areas of the adjoining stratum lots. Consequently, condition no. 4 should remain unchanged.

 

Sandstone retaining wall

The applicant seeks to amend condition no. 6 and 7 in regards to the state of the existing retaining walls. It is advised that due to the current condition of the sandstone retaining walls it is likely that they will be damaged during removal. Condition no. 6 and 7 currently reads as follows:

 

6.       The existing sandstone blocks are to be reused for the reconstructed sandstone retaining wall. The reconstructed sections of the existing sandstone retaining wall are to match the original wall as closely as possible in terms size, texture, bond pattern and alignment of blocks, mortar joint colour, and detail of capping.

 

7.       Demolition of the existing sandstone retaining wall is to be carefully carried out to minimise any damage to the original sandstone blocks and to facilitate their reuse.

 

Council’s Heritage Planning Officer has reviewed the applicants request to amend condition nos. 6 and 7 and noted that it may not be possible to re-use the existing sandstone blocks to the retaining wall. However, there is insufficient information that has been provided as part of the Section 96 modification that details the final form of the sandstone retaining wall. It is recommended that detailed sections of the reconstructed sandstone wall be provided to clarify its construction and the extent of new and existing material. Subsequently, it is recommended that condition no. 7 remain unchanged and condition no. 6 be amended as follows:

 

6.       The existing sandstone blocks are to be reused wherever possible for the reconstructed sandstone retaining wall. The reconstructed sections of the existing sandstone retaining wall are to match the original wall as closely as possible in terms size, texture, bond pattern and alignment of blocks, mortar joint colour, and detail of capping.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications to the existing development have been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and Council’s Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The modifications to the vertical slotted windows will compromise the environmental heritage of the reconstructed sandstone wall; the modification to the landscaping treatment above the garage is not consistent with the adjoining stratum lots; the modification to condition nos. 6 and 7 regarding the introduction of new sandstone material is not supported as it does not maintain the heritage significance of the sandstone wall; the deletion of the public staircase is not supported as it does not comply with the zoning objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential zoning and is not considered to be within the public interest and the modification to condition no. 3 regarding the relocation of the pedestrian gate is not supported and shall remain adjacent to the public staircase. Consequently, in considering the above the application has been recommended for refusal.      

 

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/72/2013/A to increase size of windows adjacent to front courtyard, relocation of front entry gate, increase width of garage door, alterations to front wall, extend upper terrace landscaping to boundary, new wire balustrade to lower terrace at No. 10 Victory Street, Coogee, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed modifications do not satisfy the zone objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and is contrary to the following objective:

 

·       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.

 

2.     The proposed modifications do not comply with the relevant objectives of Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the amendments will compromise the heritage significance of the sandstone retaining wall including the associated fabric and settings. 

 

3.     The deletion of the public staircase does not comply with the relevant aims of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, including:

 

(a)  To foster a livable city that is accessible, safe and healthy with quality public spaces and attractive neighbourhoods and centres;

(d)  To achieve a high standard of design in the private and public domain that enhances the quality of life of the community;   and

(e)  To promote sustainable transport, public transport use, walking and cycling

 

4.     The deletion of the public staircase is not in the public interest as it will reduce accessibility of the public domain and may set as undesirable precedent.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 10 Victory Street, Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

  


Planning Committee                                                                                                10 June 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D52/14

 

 

Subject:                  19-21 Lister Avenue, Little Bay (DA/840/2007/D)

Folder No:                   DA/840/2007/D

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification to the approved development by reconstruction of part of fence on southern boundary and removal of part of fence on southern boundary. Original consent: Refurbishment and adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings to create 3 dwellings, construction of 8 x 2 storey townhouses, basement carparking for 17 vehicles, associated earthworks and landscaping  (Heritage Item)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:                Pyramid Consulting Pty Ltd

Owner:                         The Owners - Strata Plan No. 87551

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to reconstruct part of a fence and remove other part of it on the southern boundary of the existing residential development.

 

The subject fence has already been constructed however the applicant proposes to remove that part of the fence that is to the east of the building alignment on the southern property boundary. The applicant also proposes to alter the (remaining) fence along the southern property boundary so that it is 50% transparent (see Figure 1 below).

 

Figure 1:  Proposed alterations to the existing fence, as detailed by the applicant.  

 

Site

The subject site is located on the eastern end of the Prince Henry site and has a street address of 19-21 Lister Avenue, Little Bay and is legally described as Lot 29 in DP 270427. The subject site contains a heritage item know as the Institute of Tropical Medicine complex.

 

The subject site is irregular in shape and has frontages to Pavilion Drive of approximately 49.5m and Lister Avenue of approximately 47.4m, a northern boundary to Lot 28 and southern boundary to Lot 30, both approved for multi-unit housing development. The land slopes gently (about 5%) from west to east. There is a sandstone retaining wall in the north western corner of the site, extending into Lot 28.  

 

Figure 2 : Aerial view of subject site.

 

1.    Site History

 

The subject site forms part of the Prince Henry redevelopment site and comprises Lot 29 DP 270427. The original development (DA/840/2007) was approved by Council at its meeting on 12 February 2008 and comprises the refurbishment and adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings to create 3 dwellings, construction of 8 x 2 storey townhouses, basement carparking for 17 vehicles, associated earthworks & landscaping. 

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process including a submission from the current owners’ corporation seeking withdrawal of the application or if not possible or refusing the application:

 

1.     The Prince Henry Community Association

2.     JS Meuller and Co Lawyers on behalf of the Prince Henry Community Association

3.     42 – 46 Pine Avenue, Little Bay (Marella Apartments)

4.     4 Lister Avenue, Little Bay

5.     Prince Henry Design Review Panel

 

Issue

Comment

Does not comply with Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Incompatible with the heritage significance of the site and its cartilage

Will look unsightly; and contravenes the Design Principles for the Prince Henry area.

See assessment below

 


Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment

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

 

6.1      Substantially the Same Development:

The Section 96 modification essentially involves a change to the side fence which would not substantially alter the proposal from that originally approved. Notwithstanding, the proposed changes to the fence are not suitable and would detract form the heritage significance of the site.

 

1.       Randwick LEP 2012:

Zone Objectives   R1 – General Residential:

The subject site is zoned R1 – General Residential under the Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal relates to fencing that has been installed to the western property boundary of the subject site. Generally fences are permissible within the zone.

 

The objectives of the zone relate primarily to the provision of the housing needs of the community. It is considered that the approved development, that includes a residential flat building, is consistent with these objectives.

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage conservation:

The subject site is listed as a heritage item under the RLEP 2012 and is also within a Heritage Conservation Area. Both the heritage item and the Heritage Conservation Area are known collectively as the Prince Henry Hospital.

 

Council as the consent authority must, before granting consent with respect to a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. The applicant is required to prepare a heritage management document under the cover of an application to Council; that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

 

It is noted that he applicant has not submitted a statement addressing the impact of the proposed development on the primary values of the heritage items or heritage conservation area. The Statement of Environmental Effects includes no discussion relating to heritage significance. The impact of the fence on the principal values of the Heritage Conservation Area can be qualitatively assessed on site; with reference to the objectives of the RLEP 2012 as well as in terms of the planning controls specified by the Prince Henry DCP

 

Council’s Heritage Planner has advised that:

 

“The lapped and capped fencing projects beyond the front and rear building lines. The fencing is therefore inconsistent with DCP Controls.  Due to the steep fall of the site from west to east, the fencing which has been constructed includes a complex series of uneven steps and sloping sections which are quite visible from the street frontages.  The fencing which has been constructed detracts from the setting of the Institute of Tropical Medicine building and from the streetscape of the former Prince Henry Hospital site heritage conservation

 

The Prince Henry section of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 includes objectives and planning controls for Fencing.  The DCP includes Controls that fencing should return to the building line on side boundaries and that preferred materials include masonry, and steel palisade fencing. 

 

The fence that has been constructed does not comply with these objectives and controls; and presents as an inferior streetscape element. The fence is a standard ‘lapped and cap’ paling fence that would sit more comfortably within a domestic landscape and is wholly unsuitable for the heritage precinct in which the subject site is located.

 

The fence is readily visible from surrounding residential properties and from the streetscape and generally stands out from nearby fence structures that comply with the objectives and planning controls specified by the RCDCP 2013. It is considered that the fence detracts from the primary architectural features of the residential flat building on the site; and is considered to have a significant impact on the principal heritage values of nearby (primary) heritage item and on the Heritage Conservation Area generally. In summary, it is considered that the proposal will not satisfy the objectives of Clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012; and the proposal is recommended for refusal.  

 

Clause 6.7          Foreshore scenic protection area

Clause 6.7(3) of RLEP 2012 specifies that development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas; and that the development contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

It is considered that the fence that has been installed to the western property boundary has not been designed sympathetically to the existing or desired streetscape for Pavilion Drive and that the fence detracts from the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

2.       Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Prince Henry Site, Little Bay:

 

The fence comprises a side dividing fence, constructed using ‘lap and cap’ style paling materials. The fence that has been constructed at a height of 1.8m and does not taper to match the height of the front fence once it extends beyond the front façade alignment. Having said this, the applicant proposes to remove that part of the fence that is to the east of the building alignment on the southern property boundary. The applicant also proposes to alter the (remaining) fence along the southern property boundary so that it is 50% transparent.

 

The side boundary fence (as proposed to be altered) does not comply with the planning control that fences must be integrated with the subject (residential flat) building and landscape design through the use of compatible materials and detailing. The fence detracts from the appearance of the residential flat building and does not integrate successfully with the southern façade of the building as viewed from Pavilion Drive. The fence does not comply with the planning control that specifies that preferred fence materials include masonry, and steel palisade fencing with a paint finish.

 

Overall, it is considered that the modified fence is inconsistent with the relevant objective of the RCDCP 2013 regarding fences; which requires that fences are required to contribute positively to the public domain. The existing fence detracts from the appearance of the associated residential flat building and from the heritage values of the precinct; and consequently, is recommended for refusal.

 

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 fence (as proposed to be altered), would detract from the primary heritage values of the site and would not integrate successfully with the subject residential flat building. Consequently, the proposed development is not considered to be suitable for the site

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/840/2007/D for Section 96 modification to the approved development by reconstruction of part of fence on southern boundary and removal of part of fence on southern boundary at 19-21 Lister Avenue, Little Bay for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed boundary fence would not be consistent with the relevant aims of Clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012 in that the fence detracts from the primary architectural features of the residential flat building on the site; and is considered to have a significant impact on the principal heritage values of the nearby (primary) heritage item and on the Heritage Conservation Area generally.

 

2.     The proposed boundary fence would not be consistent with the relevant aims of Clause 6.7 of the RLEP 2012 in that the proposed boundary fence has not been designed sympathetically to the existing or desired streetscape for Pavilion Drive and that the fence detracts from the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

3.     The proposed boundary fence does not comply with the relevant objectives and planning controls under Part E4, Section 4.16 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 relating to fences.  The proposed fence would not contribute positively to the public domain and would detract from the appearance of the associated residential flat building.

 

4.     The proposed fence is not considered to be suitable development for the subject site as assessed under Section 79C(1)(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended); in that the fence would detract from the primary heritage values of the site and would not integrate successfully with the subject residential flat building.

 

5.     The development does not demonstrate a satisfactory level of design quality in accordance with the principles of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

6.     The proposal is not consistent with the Prince Henry Design Principles

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                10 June 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D53/14

 

 

Subject:                  10A Kynaston Avenue, Randwick (DA/597/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/597/2013

Author:                   Roger Quinton, Coordinator Assessment     

 

Proposal:                     Demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of a residential flat building

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:                ASA Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                         H & J Strykowski

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposal includes a departure from a Development Standard of greater than 10% and has also been called up by Councillors Neilson, Shurey and Matson.

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing structures and construct a 3 storey residential flat building containing 6 units above a partial basement level with car parking for 6 vehicles, storage areas and bicycle parking. The application also includes landscaping, a pedestrian access bridge from the entry lobby to the Kynaston Avenue landscaped road reserve and a visitor car park space/car wash space at ground level accessed from Tram Lane.  

 

Site

The subject property is triangular in shape and is located at the intersection of Tram lane and Kynaston Avenue.  The site presently contains a single storey dwelling and garage. The landscaped road reserve of Kynaston Avenue is to the north of the site with two storey dwellings located on the opposite side of Kynaston Avenue. Tram Lane is located to the rear of the site with a variety of development which fronts Alison Road backing onto the laneway including 3 storey dwellings, residential flat buildings and one dwelling which is used as the Joseph Varga school.       

 

Submissions

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

 

130 Alison Road

28 Church Street (2 objections)

7/10 Kynaston Avenue

9/10 Kynaston Avenue

 

Issues

Comments

Over-development of the site, should comply with floor space ratio (FSR)

The proposal was amended to comply with the FSR development standard in RLEP 2012. As detailed below in the key issues section, the impacts of the development are considered to be acceptable. The proposal is therefore not considered to result in an overdevelopment of the site.

The height of the development is excessive and will result in adverse amenity impacts

As detailed below, the variation to the maximum height development standard occurs as a result of a clerestorey window structure that is localized to the central part of the building and does not result in any additional amenity impacts. The infringement of the wall height control is assessed as being acceptable and as a consequence of the topography of the site. See key issues section.

 

The survey provided with application is inaccurate

The survey was undertaken by a registered surveyor and is considered to be acceptable.

The development will exacerbate existing  traffic and parking problems in the area and should comply with DCP parking requirements 

As detailed  in the key issues section, Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the application as being acceptable in this regard.

Inadequate landscaping and communal open space provided

Each unit is to be provided with a generous balcony and the proposed landscaped area has been assessed as being acceptable as discussed in the key issues section below.  

Adverse impact on the landscaped road reserve of Kynaston Avenue

It is considered that the proposal will result in positive impacts on the Kynaston Avenue landscaped reserve as it will significantly increase opportunities for passive surveillance and therefore improve public safety. In addition, it is considered that the design of the development is such that it will not negatively impact on the landscape qualities of Kynaston Avenue.

The design is not harmonious with surrounding development

The development was reviewed by the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (SEPP65) Design Review Panel which stated that the development was of a straightforward form and character that would enhance its surroundings. 

Inadequate notification process

The application was notified in accordance with requirements of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. 

Inadequate setbacks

Setbacks for irregular shaped allotments are assessed on merit. Proposed setbacks are considered to be acceptable and are discussed in the key issues section below. 

Adverse shadow impacts

As discussed in the following key issues section, the development is considered to be acceptable in this regard and complies with the DCP.

Adverse privacy impacts

As discussed in the following key issues section, the development is considered to be acceptable in this regard, subject to  proposed conditions of consent.

Impact on views

The proposal will not impact any significant or iconic views from surrounding properties.

Additional noise impacts

The proposal is for a medium density residential development and any additional resultant noise impacts are consistent with the increased density allowed for in the R3 Medium Density zone.

Construction impacts

Standard conditions are included in the proposed recommendation covering potential impacts from construction including the impacts from construction traffic.   

 

Exception to Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

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

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

 

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

 

(a)      The consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

(b)      the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

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

 

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

 

Building height

The development proposes a maximum height of 13.23m to the top of the clerestory window located above the media room for unit 5 and above the common access stairs.

 

Clause 4.3 of the LEP nominates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum building height as shown on the map is 12m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Building Height

Proposal

13.23m

LEP development standard

12m

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

10.2%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The objectives of the height of building standard are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Consistency with the objectives of the height standard in the LEP

The following assessment addresses each of the relevant criteria under Clause 4.6:

 

Clause 4.6 Height:

1.     The objectives of this clause are as follows:

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

 

Assessment: The proposed height is consistent with the height of the residential flat building to the west of 10 Kynaston Avenue and thereby ensures that the built form will be consistent with the height of the closest adjoining neighbour. The height is also lower than the nearest residence to the north-east located at 26 Church Street which has a greater overall height.

 

The bulk and scale of the proposal is therefore contextually appropriate and its high degree of compliance with the building envelope controls ensures that the form of development is consistent with the desired future character of the area. The proposal protects the amenity of surrounding residents through the retention of solar access, outlook, visual and acoustic privacy and views.

 

The component of the development above the height standard is limited to a minor portion of the overall building height, is located towards the centre of the roof plane, and is recessed from the perimeter of the compliant and primary building form.

 

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

 

Assessment: The proposal is suitably separated from the nearest heritage items located to the south addressed to Alison Road.

 

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,

 

Assessment: The additional height does not contribute to any amenity impacts to any surrounding property in regard to overshadowing, loss of view or creation of any visual or acoustic impacts. The recessed and minor nature of the non-compliant component ensures that it is not responsible for any adverse amenity impacts in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing or views.

 

Therefore, the proposal satisfies the relevant height objectives.

 

1.       Consistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone Objectives of zone

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment: The proposed height that is associated with the proposed residential flat building use does not create an inconsistency with the zone objectives as it provides for a compatible streetscape outcome as desired by the objectives.

 

The use of clerestory windows to provide natural light and ventilation to units and common lobbies reduces the dependency on mechanical and electrical services and is a desired characteristic of SEPP 65.

 

The proposed use, height and density has also been supported by the Design Review Panel and is considered to be suitable in this location adjacent to the town centre of Randwick, park and public transport.

 

The proposed replacement of a single dwelling with medium density housing is consistent with the zone and therefore the provision of the proposed density is considered to be appropriate on the subject site. It is also reiterated that the proposed height variation is associated with an architectural roof feature.

 

2.       Consistency with State and Regional planning policies

 

Assessment: The proposed height variation allows for the orderly and economic use of land as envisaged by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The proposed height allows for achievement of the building envelope as contemplated by the controls. The elimination of the architectural roof feature would not significantly reduce the overall height of the building but would only serve to reduce the internal amenity to residents of the proposal without any justification.

 

The proposed height is consistent with the State Policy for Urban Consolidation and the provision of higher densities adjacent to primary public transport corridors (in this instance Randwick Junction).

 

3.       The variation allows for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment: The proposal provides for a better planning outcome as the proposed additional height provides relief to the flat roof and also increases solar access to the uppermost units. The proposal thereby has positive streetscape and internal amenity outcomes with no external impacts.

 

4.       There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

Assessment: The additional height does not contribute to any amenity impacts to any surrounding property in regard to overshadowing, loss of view or creation of any visual or acoustic impacts.

 

The pop-up clerestory roof lights are considered to be an architectural roof feature, which also add visual interest to the roof form and increased amenity to the proposal. The flat roof design also minimises the overall height of the development and ensures that the overall height is less than neighbouring properties in the vicinity as depicted on the south-western elevation.

 

It is considered that variation to the height standard will not compromise the intent of the standard or the planning intent for the site and the general area.

 

5.       The variation is in the public interest

 

Assessment: The proposed height is considered to be in the public interest as it provides for additional housing in a convenient location to Randwick Junction Town Centre and its associated transport services. The lack of impacts to any surrounding property further ensures that the proposal is not responsible for any adverse external impacts thereby confirming that the proposal is in the public interest.

 

The provision of 6 x high quality 2 bedroom units under an attractive roof form is considered to be a desirable urban design and sustainable outcome on the subject site with access to a high level of natural amenity and light, which is therefore in the public interest.

 

Conclusion For reasons mentioned herein, this Clause 4.6 variation is forwarded to Council in support of the development proposal at 10A Kynaston Avenue, Randwick and is requested to be looked upon favourably by Council.

 

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

 

·      There will be no adverse environmental impacts as a result of the infringement. The clerestorey window structure does not result in additional shadow impacts on adjacent properties and does not result in any additional privacy impacts.

·      The non-compliance is limited to a structure with a maximum width of 7.7m and is not the whole width of the building.

·      The non-compliance is centrally located on the roof of the building and will not result in additional visual bulk.

·      It can not be argued that concurrence to this variation is in conflict with the objectives of the R3 zone as approval would not impact on the amenity of surrounding residents or adversely impact on the desirable elements of the existing streetscape or character of the area.

 

Based on the above, it is considered the proposed development will be in the public interest as it will remain consistent with the objectives of the R3 Zone and the building height standard. 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

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

•    To recognize the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, that contribute to the desitred 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 changing character of the surrounding residential environment and built form. It would also have an acceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Setbacks

Objectives in the DCP for this control include the requirement to maintain a constant rhythm of street setbacks that contribute to the local character, to ensure adequate separation between buildings to ensure adequate visual/acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views and to allow for open space and deep soil planting. The DCP allows for front setbacks to be assessed on a merit basis where the area is under transition and also on a merit basis for side setbacks where the development site is of an irregular shape. The subject property is an irregular triangular shape and has front boundaries to Kynaston Avenue and Tram Lane and a side boundary adjacent to No. 10 Kynaston Avenue. The area is considered to be in transition as it includes development dating from the 19th and 20th centuries but also includes development from the early 21st  century.  

 

Front setbacks to Kynaston Avenue range from 1.75m to 2.25m to the face of the building and 1m to 1.5m to the edge of the balconies. This is considered to acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The application includes landscaping to the sides and front of the site. Re-planting of the portion of the landscaped reserve of Kynaston Avenue immediately to the front of the site is also proposed, which will improve the amenity of the neighbourhood.

·      Kynaston Avenue is unformed and functions as public reserve, the proposed development will have positive impacts on the reserve by improving surveillance of the reserve and thereby improving public safety.

·      The design of the building includes significant articulation and use of different materials. The building emphasizes the corner of Tram Lane and Kynaston Avenue. 

·      The subject property is located approximately 1.5 to 2m below the main level of Kynaston Avenue. The level difference ensures the bulk of the development is not excessive when viewed from Kynaston Avenue. 

·      The location of the site is such that there will be minimal impact on the Church Street streetscape, to which Kynaston Avenue connects.

·      Development on the opposite side of Tram Lane includes garages with habitable accommodation set back at some distance fronting Alison Road.   

 

The development provides a 2.5m setback to the western side boundary with 10 Kynaston Avenue. This is deemed to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      Shadow impacts are acceptable as detailed below.

·      Privacy impacts are considered to be acceptable, subject to proposed conditions, also as discussed below.

·      There would be adequate separation between the buildings at 10 and 10A Kynaston Avenue, being approximately 6.85m.  

 

Height/wall height

The applicant seeks to vary the maximum height development standard and has submitted a Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standards submission as detailed above. It is considered that the relevant objectives in RLEP 2012 are satisfied and that the variation submission is well founded.

 

Objectives to the wall height control include ensuring the provision of interesting roof forms which are compatible with the street and the minimisation of bulk in order to limit overshadowing, privacy and amenity impacts. The proposed development has wall heights ranging from 10.9 to 12m on the Kynaston Avenue frontage, 11.2 to 12m on the western elevation and 11.5 to 12m facing the laneway. The infringement of the control is considered to be acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The design scheme is well articulated and utilises a variety of different materials which reduces the perception of bulk.

·      The bulk of the development complies with the maximum height development standard apart from the clerestorey windows in the centre of the building.

·      The proposal provides for a 3 storey building with part basement below which is consistent with the built form character envisaged under the control.

·      Shadow and privacy impacts are, subject to proposed conditions of approval, considered to be acceptable as discussed below.  

 

Car parking

The objectives of the DCP for this control include that requirement that an appropriate level of off-street parking is provided. The development provides 7 spaces, including 1 visitor space. The DCP requires the provision of 9 spaces, giving a shortfall of 2 spaces. Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the proposal as being acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      Each 2 bedroom unit has been allocated a car park space which is consistent with other developments in the area.

·      The site is located in close proximity (within 300m) of Randwick Town Centre and good public transport with a number of bus routes available in Alison and Belmore Roads.

·      There is a public car-park on Church Street, immediately adjacent to the site containing 5 spaces (including a car share bay).

·      The future light rail line will pass within 200m of the site.

 

Landscaping

Objectives relating to this control in the DCP include to improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design, improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity of stormwater, reduce impermeable surface cover, to provide open space for recreational activities and to allow the growth of substantial vegetation. The development provides 32.45% of the area of the site in landscaping which is short of the 50% requirement as the areas located beneath the substantial areas of building over-hang have not been counted as landscaped area. The DCP definition of what can be considered as landscaped area is unclear in this circumstance, however it is considered that areas beneath the overhangs should not be considered as landscaping. The application had stated that 52.5% of the site was landscaped when these areas were included in the calculation. Despite these spaces not being counted as landscaped area, it is considered that they add to the amenity of the site being landscaped with grasses and feature rocks.  The design scheme will meet the requirement for 25% deep soil planting. The infringement of the control is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The application provides for adequate levels of deep soil planting.

·      Replanting of the area of Kynaston Avenue in front of the site is proposed, thereby adding to the vegetative cover in the immediate vicinity of the site.

·      Each unit has a generous sized balcony.

·      Increasing the level of landscaping would not significantly increase levels of on-site amenity or the amenity of surrounding properties given the location of the site immediately adjacent to a reserve. 

·      Stormwater disposal from the site is considered to be satisfactory, subject to proposed conditions consent.

 

Shadow impacts

Objectives for this control include ensuring that new development retains reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

Shadow diagrams, including shadow elevations, indicating impacts between 8am and 4pm on 21 June have been provided with the application. These show the following:

·      At 8am on 21 June a portion of the rear windows in the eastern wall of 10 Kynaston Avenue are shaded on the lower 3 levels. By 9am these windows are clear of shadow.   

·      At 12 noon on 21 June shadows fall to the rear of the site over Tram Lane and on to the roofs of garages and outbuildings fronting the lane. A small portion of the rear yards of properties fronting Alison Road would be shaded but DCP requirements would still be satisfied.

·      At 4pm on 21 June shadows have moved onto the eastern portion of Tram lane and onto a portion of Kynaston Avenue east of the site.

 

Shadow impacts are considered to be acceptable because relevant DCP controls are satisfied and impacts are generally over the lane at the rear of the site over roofs of buildings fronting the lane.

 

Privacy

The DCP has objectives requiring the protection of visual and acoustic privacy of occupants of a development and also for adjoining and nearby properties.

 

Privacy impacts to properties on the northern side of Kynaston Avenue are not significant given that the width of the reserve is in excess of 19m. Similarly, impacts to the south are considered to be acceptable given the separation distance of Tram Lane and the presence of garages along the laneway.

 

In the western elevation of the proposed development facing 10 Kynaston Avenue, are bathroom and kitchen windows. Proposed conditions of consent require that these windows have obscure glazing to a height of 1.6m above floor level. A further proposed condition of consent requires the screening in the west-facing balconies to be only 25% open in order to limit impacts on 10 Kynaston Avenue.  

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the FSR control in RLEP and the bulk of the building also complies with the maximum height control with the infringement of the development standard being supported as the variance is caused by clerestorey windows centrally located within the building structure. Relevant controls and objectives within the RDCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts are assessed as being acceptable, subject to proposed conditions of consent.

 

The scale and design of the proposal has been commended by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/597/2013 for demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of a residential flat building at No. 10A Kynaston Avenue Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

        Amended Plans and Documentation

2       The approved plans must be amended in accordance with the following requirements

 

a.  The following windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively the windows are to be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height or exterior privacy screens can be added with openings not to exceed 25% of the area of the screen:

 

·      Kitchen and bathroom windows in the western elevation facing No. 10 Kynaston Avenue.

 

b.  Screening on balconies is to have openings not exceeding 25% of the area of the screen on the western side of the balconies facing No. 10 Kynaston Avenue.

 

c.  Details of fencing are to be submitted for council approval prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 10A Kynaston Avenue, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                10 June 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D54/14

 

 

Subject:                  3 Kyogle Street, Maroubra (DA/703/2013/A)

Folder No:                   DA/703/2013/A

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                     Section 96 modification to approved development by replacement of skylights with dormer window and addition of new window at first floor on northern side

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:                Chris Elliott Architects P/L

Owner:                         Mr M S S Keil and Mrs N M Henderson

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks to modify the original consent determined at the Ordinary Council meeting on 25 February 2014.

 

Proposal

 

The scope of modifications includes replacing a skylight within the front roof plane with a dormer and adding one window to the first floor northern elevation.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Kyogle Street. The site has an area of 272sqm and irregularly shaped with a 14.22m frontage, side boundary depths of over 16m and 21m and a skewed rear boundary. The site adjoins the rear boundaries of No 95 and 97 Mons Avenue and shares a common side boundary with No. 5 Kyogle Street. The aerial view below shows the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Aerial View of subject site and neighbouring properties

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

S96 Assessment

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

 

2.1      Substantially the Same Development:

The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted. The scope of modifications includes replacing a skylight within the front roof plane with a dormer and adding one window to the first floor northern elevation. The proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

Additional design Provisions for Semi-Detached Dwellings

The Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 identifies additional design provisions and objectives for semi detached dwellings. The main objectives are that:

 

Any redevelopment or alteration and addition to an individual semi-detached dwelling recognise it as being half of a pair of symmetrical, similar or complementary buildings.

 

Any development to a semi-detached dwelling is carefully integrated with the building to which it is attached, and takes into account any possible future development to the latter.

 

The associated controls include that development must respect and enhance the architectural character of the pair of semi-detached dwellings as a coherent entity. Possible design solutions include that alterations and additions respect the existing architectural expression and symmetry between the pair of semi-detached dwellings and that the bulk of any first floor addition should be setback from the principal street frontage and accommodated to the rear of the dwelling, with a substantial portion of the existing front roof remaining intact.

 

The subject dwelling shares symmetry with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 5 Kyogle Street and the proposed dormer introduces a physical element to the front roof plan thus altering to a degree the symmetry shared across both semis. However, the proposed dormers have been appropriately designed in compliance with the specific controls under Section 4.4 of the DCP: Roof Design and Features, and will not dominate the adjoining semi or streetscape. In particular, as indicated further below under dormers, the proposed dormer is appropriately located within the roof and it has a size, bulk and scale that do not add any excessive building mass. Further, in terms of streetscape character, an analysis of the site and the streetscape reveals a number of significantly larger first floor additions to semi-detached dwellings that slightly impinge over the ridge lines at the front. The subject site is not a heritage item, not within a heritage conservation area or in the vicinity of a heritage item.

 

Overall, the proposed dormer represents an acceptable planning and urban design outcome both in the context of the relationship with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and the streetscape character.

 

Roof Design and Features          

The RDCP 2013 controls are that dormer windows don’t dominate the dwelling, are a maximum of 1500mm in height that the top is below the roof ridge, it is setback 500mm from the side of the roof and faces behind side elevation below, and above the gutter roof below.

 

The proposed dormer meets all the design controls referred to above, integrates well with the existing roof form and contributes to the streetscape character.

 

 

 

Privacy

The proposed dormer window and new first floor north facing window will not result in any adverse impacts on the privacy enjoyed by neighbouring properties having regard to the originally approved development.

 

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 sought as part of this application are largely minor variations to the originally approved development. The proposed dormer at the front roof plane alters the symmetry with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. However it is considered to be appropriately scaled within the existing and adjoining semi-detached dwellings roof forms in so far it is has been designed in compliance with the DCP controls for dormers. Moreover, it is evident that the streetscape contains several examples of first floor additions to semi detached dwellings containing significantly greater bulk and massing at the front than the proposed dormer which does not  dominate the relationship between the pair of semi-detached dwellings and nor will it detract from the streetscape character.

 

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/703/2013 for a dormer to the front roof plane and adding one window to the first floor northern elevation, at No. 3 Kyogle Street, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

1      The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the following plan and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA-01-C Rev C

Chris Elliot Architects

24-01-14

29 January 2013

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A168475_03

5 February 2014

5 February 2014

 

        as amended by the following Section 96 plan and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA-01-D Rev C

Chris Elliot Architects

09-04-14

9 April 2014

 

 

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A168475_04

8 April 2014

9 April 2014

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Kyogle Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER