Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 8 July 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 8 July 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 - 10 June 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.

D55/14      1R Bernie Kelly Drive, Maroubra (DA/271/2014)........................................ 1

D56/14      162 Gale Road, Maroubra (DA/303/2014)................................................. 7

D57/14      97R Brook Street, Coogee (DA/262/2014).............................................. 13

D58/14      5 Pardey Street, Kingsford (DA/281/2014)............................................. 19

D59/14      77 Storey Street, Maroubra (DA/295/2014)............................................ 25

D60/14      11 Lurline Street, Maroubra
(DA/161/2009/D)...............................................................................
29

D61/14      9-11 Baden Street, Coogee (DA/750/2013)............................................. 37

D62/14      78-80 Wild Street, Maroubra (DA/283/2014)........................................... 53

D63/14      41 Fowler Crescent, Maroubra (DA/297/2014)......................................... 63

D64/14      23 McKeon Street, Maroubra
(DA/226/2008/B)...............................................................................
73

D65/14      4-8 Storey Street, Maroubra (DA/259/2014)........................................... 79

 

Development Application Report (record of voting NOT required)

D66/14      Design Excellence Panel...................................................................... 91

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D55/14

 

 

Subject:                  1R Bernie Kelly Drive, Maroubra (DA/271/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/271/2014

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Enclosure of existing terrace at South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club and construction of new training room and storeroom, new bi-fold doors and internal changes to ex training room

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Artas Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Department of Lands

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee as the subject site is under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club in Bernie Kelly Drive, Maroubra. The scope of works for which consent is sought includes the following as listed in the submitted SEE:

 

§ Remove the existing open terrace and enclose a new training and ancillary store room adjacent to the existing building.

 

Accordingly, the existing terrace is used as a training area and it is proposed to enclose the space to allow for all weather protection.

 

The existing building gross floor area will increase by 104.87m2 with the enclosure of the existing outdoor terrace. However, the proposal does not increase the existing building footprint, rather enclosing an existing external area.

 

As indicated on the submitted plans the proposed new roof will match the existing ridge height above the existing outdoor terrace, and the building will retain its existing built form, while improving the internal amenity.

 

The present use and operation of the club are not changing, and the proposed works are perceived to be relatively minor in nature to what currently exists on the site.

 

Site

 

The South Maroubra Surf Life Saving (SLSC) is located at 1R Bernie Kelly Drive, Maroubra. To the east of the building is South Maroubra Beach, whilst to the north, south and west are landscaped public areas including a playground.

 

The subject property is located on Crown Land.

 

The SLSC provides club facilities for club members and guests which enable the provision of voluntary surf lifesaving service to South Maroubra Beach. The property itself comprises a part two part three storey building. The floor plan of the property includes administrative offices, a caretaker’s unit, storage facilities for life saving and training equipment, gymnasium and first aid facilities, male and female amenities, function hall, kitchen, bar and balcony areas.

 

The current use of the site is of a public benefit providing a benefit and service in relation to Surf Life Saving Australia, health and fitness and a community spirit.

 

Photos of the site are provided below.

 

Description: IMG_7727

Photo 1: The subject site. Looking east towards the existing outdoor terrace. The existing terrace is currently used as a training area and it is proposed to enclose the space to allow for all weather protection.

Description: IMG_7712

Photo 2: Area of proposed works, looking west. The enclosure of the outdoor terrace will not exceed the height of the existing built form nor will it extend beyond the existing building footprint, minimising any impacts associated with view loss.

Description: IMG_7715

Photo 3: Area of proposed works. The area will be enclosed to provide weather protection. The roof line will fall to the west, with a maximum height of 3.935m.

 

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

 

Local Context

The proposed development application has regard to the existing planning controls of the surrounding locality, aspirations for the Maroubra Beach Precinct and contemporary design and current building provisions. It is considered unlikely that the scale and intensity of the proposed development will adversely impact on the immediate vicinity.

 

Built Form

No FSR or height controls apply under the provisions of the Randwick LEP 2012 to the subject site. The proposed development will have a maximum height of 3.935m above natural ground level. The surrounding area is essentially unaffected by the proposed development. The building footprint will remain the same, however with the enclosure of the existing outdoor terrace, the gross floor area will increase by 104.87m2.

 

Visual Impact and Loss of Views

Due to the location, orientation, lack of adjoining properties and the continued use of the premises the consequences of privacy, overshadowing, light spill and visual privacy are not applicable to the proposed development application.

 

The enclosure of the outdoor terrace will not exceed the height of the existing built form nor will it extend beyond the existing building footprint, minimising any environmental impacts associated with view loss.

 

Acoustic Privacy

The development will not significantly affect the noise output of the premises, as the use of the Club will continue to operate in accordance with the terms of the lease. The existing terrace, currently used for training purposes, is to be enclose to allow for all weather protection. The will restrict the emission of noise from the site.

 

Therefore, as the use or hours of operation of the facility will not be changed, there will be no adverse impacts on the surrounding locality due to noise emissions.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse Community.

Direction 2d:      New and upgraded community facilities that are multi purpose and in accessible locations.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter as the Club are funding the works.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development adequately addresses the relevant assessment criteria and objectives of the ‘RE1 Recreation Zone’ and objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2013 and responds to the current building requirements to provide a well-designed and improved facility. The alterations and additions proposed in the subject development application are considered to be suitable for the site in the context of the surrounding locality.

 

The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding development in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy. The traffic implications will not be significant as the intensity of the use is not proposed to significantly change. The facility will maintain the existing footprint and useable internal area.

 

The proportions, massing, colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory. The proposed design carries positive architectural merits and will be sympathetic to the characteristics of the existing club house facilities and locality. A condition is recommended to require the prior approval of Council of the final external schedule of materials.

 

The proposed development will be satisfactory with respect to the relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions outlined in this report.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 271/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club, at No. 1R Bernie Kelly Drive, Maroubra, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1R Bernie Kelly Drive, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D56/14

 

 

Subject:                  162 Gale Road, Maroubra (DA/303/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/303/2014

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey dwelling house with swimming pool at the front, new front boundary fence, associated site and landscape works

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Aetch Design

Owner:                        Mr W Stretton

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval (with swimming pool deleted)

 

 

 

 

 

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 family members are Council employees.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal includes the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and outbuildings located at the rear of the site. The new dwelling is to be freestanding with a gross floor area of 207sqm. The new dwelling is to contain four (4) bedrooms, a study room, three bathrooms (one of which is an ensuite to the master bedroom), a laundry, an open plan kitchen and dining area and a separate living area. The dwelling also contains a single garage that will have direct access to Gale Road via a driveway.  The proposal also includes a swimming pool within the front setback. Due to the non-compliance and lack of precedent for the location of the swimming pool, it is deleted from the approved plans and does not form part of the recommended development consent.

 

Site

 

Figure 1 - Location of 162 Gale Road, Maroubra

 

The site is a rectangular shape 10.06m wide and 31.28m long. The total site area is 314.7sqm. The site has a slight fall from east to west.

 

There is a single storey dwelling at the centre of the site with a shed towards the rear of the site. No significant vegetation exists on the site.

 

There is currently no vehicle access to the site.

A photograph of the site as viewed from Gale Road is provided below in Figure 2.

 

Description: IMG_8705

Figure 2 - View of subject site from Gale Road

 

The adjoining property to the west is No. 160A Gale Road and contains a one storey dwelling with a shared driveway to the west of the site.  A photograph of No.160A is included in Figure 3.

 

Description: IMG_8707

Figure 3 - No. 160A Gale Road

 

The adjoining property to the east is No. 164 Gale Road contains a two storey dwelling above basement garages. A photograph of No. 164 Gale Road is provided in Figure 4.

 

Description: IMG_8706

Figure 4 - No. 164 Gale Road

 

The nearby properties in Gale Road are a mix of new one and two storey dwellings and original single storey dwellings.  Gale Road has a crest and limited sight distance travelling to the west. The road is wide enough to accommodate kerb side parking on both sides.  Figure 5 shows Gale Road looking west from the subject site.

 

Description: IMG_8701

Figure 5 - Gale Road looking west

 

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.

Key Issues

 

Overall the proposal is compliant with the relevant controls and objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2013 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

The proposal seeks minor variations to the front and rear setbacks.  The front setback variation is 210mm and is associated with cladding fixed to the external wall at first floor level which is consistent with the overall architectural design and character of the dwelling.  The rear setback is deficient by less than 0.8m and has no impacts on the amenity of the future occupants or neighbouring properties in terms of privacy or overshadowing and does not compromise landscaped area and deep soil planting.  The rear setback is also greater than that of the neighbouring property to the west and overall is considered to be acceptable in the circumstances.

 

The proposal included a swimming pool within the front setback area.  The DCP does not support swimming pools forward of the front building line.  A swimming pool within the front setback is considered to compromise space available for the provision of canopy trees (required by Part 2.4 to the DCP) and does not allow for sufficient screening planting to site boundaries.  The swimming pool also required a front fence design which created privacy from the street and the fence design is not compatible with the streetscape, it prevents opportunities for casual surveillance and does not comply with the design requirements for front fencing in Part 7.2 to the DCP.  There are no precedents within the neighbourhood for swimming pools within the front setback area.  For these reasons development consent is not granted for the swimming pool and conditions are recommended for the swimming pool to be deleted from the approved plans and replaced with suitable landscaping.

 

There are no other issues that warrant discussion in this report.

 

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 majority of controls and objectives of Randwick LEP 2013 and Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The swimming pool is not approved as part of this application.

 

The front and rear setback variations are minor and are consistent with the relevant objectives of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Variations for the front and rear setbacks are considered reasonable in the circumstances.

 

This application is considered to be sufficient and development consent is recommended subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 303/2014 for Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey dwelling house, new front boundary fence, associated site and landscape works, at No. 162 Gale Road, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The swimming pool located within the front setback of the subject site is deleted from the approved plans and does not form part of this development consent.

 

b.     The area within the front setback is to be provided with soft landscaping and shall include the planting of two (2) canopy trees suitable to attain a mature height of more than 4m.  Plans submitted with the Construction Certificate are to indicate these changes.

 

c.     The design of the front fence shall be amended so as to provide open form elements and achieve some casual surveillance between the ground floor living room and the street in accordance with the requirements of Part 7.2 to Randwick Development Control Plan.  Details of the amended fence design and materials are to be indicated on the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 162 Gale Road, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D57/14

 

 

Subject:                  97R Brook Street, Coogee (DA/262/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/262/2014

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing Coogee Seniors Citizen Centre including alterations to roof form, addition of storage area, new kitchen and toilets, alterations to entry, windows, exterior finishes, signage landscaping and associated works

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                        Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee as the subject site is under the care, control and management of Randwick City Council.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development application seeks approval for alterations and additions to the existing Coogee Senior Citizens Centre in Brook Street, Coogee. The scope of works for which consent is sought includes the following as listed in the submitted SEE:

 

§  New two-level roof – comprising a single storey section at the Brook Street frontage, stepping up above the hall space at the rear to a maximum height of RL 11.76. It is noted that this is the same height as the existing brick parapet;

§  Raising the level of the internal floor by 630mm to RL 7.1;

§  Installation of new gutters and downpipes (connect to new rainwater collection tank located under the building);

§  Reconfiguration of the building footprint to accommodate a new covered secure storage area on the southern of the main hall, resulting in an additional 3m2 (approx.) to the building footprint. It should be noted however, that there is no change to the gross floor area of the building;

§  Various changes to doors and windows including:

delete existing main entry from Brook Street and replace with obscure glass windows to provide natural light to reconfigured male and female amenities;

delete existing double doors in northern and southern elevations;

delete existing window and replace with new single entry door in northern elevations;

new single fire door exit in southern elevation in the south eastern corner of the building;

delete two (2) existing windows in the southern elevation;

enlarge existing window openings in northern and eastern elevations; and

new window to relocated kitchen in northern elevation.

§  New paintwork throughout;

§  New male and female WCs, including accessible WC;

§  Installation of new flooring throughout;

§  Upgrade electrical/wiring;

§  Installation of new acoustic ceiling linings and insulation;

§  Removal of existing kitchen and construction of new kitchen in the western part of the building; and

§  Construction of a covered, secure store on the southern side of the building.

 

External Works

§  Landscape treatment to grassed area immediately to the north of the existing building including – minor re-shaping, re-turfing and the removal of one (1) tree. Details of the planting schedule and landscape configuration are included in the Architectural Package (Dwg No. 102H);

§  Construction of a new access ramp to relocated building entry;

§  Building identification signage;

§  Stair to relocated building entry; and

§  Installation of unit paving along northern and eastern sides of the building to create outdoor areas to be known as North Terrace and East Terrace.

 

As indicated on the submitted plans the proposed new roof will match the existing ridge height. The building will retain a single storey form with a high roof to improve the internal amenity.

 

Site

 

The Senior Citizens Centre is located on the eastern side of Brook Street at Coogee, immediately adjacent to Coogee Oval. The site is known as 97R Brook Street, Coogee and currently comprises a single storey face-brick building with a suspended timber floor and metal roofing.

 

The existing building footprint is approximately 200m2.

 

The building is currently used by seniors groups but is also available for use by the wider community.

 

Development in the immediate vicinity of the site includes:

§  Coogee Oval to the east; and

§  Randwick Rugby Club to the west.

 

Existing development in the vicinity of the site comprises a mixture of land uses, including residential of varying densities (e.g. single dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and multi-storey residential flat buildings), sporting facilities (Coogee Oval, Eastern Suburbs Tennis Club and Coogee Bowling Club), commercial activities and passive open space. The Coogee Town Centre is located approximately 200m south east on Coogee Bay Road. Coogee Beach is located 400 metres to the east.

 

Photos of the site are provided below.

 

Description: IMG_7753

Description: IMG_7746

Photo 1: The subject site, 97R Brook Street (west elevation).

Photo 2: Looking West towards the Brook Street entrance, adjacent to the southern elevation of the site.

Description: IMG_7756

Description: IMG_7752

Photo 3: Eastern elevation. New paving will be positioned along the northern side of the building to create one of two (2) new terraces, known as North Terrace.

Photo 4: North elevation. Proposed landscaping treatment to the grassed area will include minor re-shaping, re-turfing and the removal of one tree. A new access ramp will be relocated tp the new building entry.

Description: IMG_7743

 

Photo 5: Existing storage area. A new storage area has been incorporated into the southern side of the building, providing concealed waste storage facilities. The storage area will be solid brick to link in with the building and minimise visual impact.

 

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

 

The proposal is for the alteration and additions to the existing Coogee Senior Citizens Centre.

 

The submitted plans and associate documentation are the subject of this report. They have been reviewed. The resultant key issues have been discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

Local Context

 

The proposed development application has regard to the existing planning controls for the surrounding locality and aspirations for the Coogee Oval Precinct and desirable contemporary design outcomes and current building provisions particularly with regard to safety, health and access. It is considered unlikely that the scale and intensity of the proposed development will adversely impact on the immediate vicinity particularly in terms of generated traffic and acoustic implications.

 

The alterations and additions will improve the internal and external relationship between the Senior Citizen’s Centre and the Coogee Oval.

 

Flooding

 

The applicant has provided amendments to the originally submitted plans to address issues raised by Council’s Development Engineer. These amendments satisfy flooding provisions with the exception of the proposed storage area on the southern side of the building. It is proposed below the level of the 1 in 100 year flood and will experience flood depths of over 0.5m during a flood of this magnitude.

 

Section 5.3, Part B8 of Council’s DCP 2013 permits additions at the existing lowest habitable floor level provided any additional floor area does not exceed 10% of the existing floor area. The proposed storage area is approximately 15m2 representing 9.2% of the existing floor area and therefore meets the relevant criteria. It is also noted the proposed storage area is replacing an existing storage area of approximately the same area.

 

Built Form

 

No FSR or height controls apply under the provisions of Rnadwick LEP 2012 to the subject site. The surrounding locality, to the north, south and west, are subject to a maximum permissible building height of 12 metres and a maximum permissible FSR of 0.9:1. The proposed development application will achieve a maximum height of 11.76 metres. This matches the existing maximum RL but extends this maximum to enable a high roof to improve internal amenity. This extension will not result in adverse visual impact in terms of bulk and scale or implications with respect to excessive overshadowing, loss of views or visual privacy. Consequently, the proposed development is of a scale deemed to be appropriate for this locality.

 

View Loss and Visual Impacts

 

The reconfigured roof form and hall are setback from Brook Street to minimise any perceived visual impact. The reconfigured roof form does not exceed the height of the existing brick parapet, minimising any environmental impacts associated with view loss.

 

The proposed alterations and additions will improve the appearance of the structure, thereby making a positive visual contribution to the Coogee Oval Precinct and surrounding locality.

 

Tree Removal

 

The proposed works require the removal of one (1) tree, located to the north of the site to allow for the construction of the access ramp.

 

It is noted that landscape treatment forms part of the subject development application, surrounding the Senior Citizens Centre. It is considered this will contribute to the quality of the public domain of the surrounding locality, and will ameliorate the loss of the tree. It is noted that the tree requires constant pruning as it impacts on overhead powerlines. Removal of the tree will address any maintenance and safety concerns in this regard.


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

 

The estimated cost of the proposed development is $1,221.115.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development adequately addresses the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the ‘RE1 Public Recreation Zone’ and objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2013 and responds to the current building requirements to provide a well designed and improved facility that will enhance the existing character of the site and locality. The alterations and additions of the proposed development application is considered to be suitable for the site in the context of the surrounding locality.

 

The proposal will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding development in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy. The traffic implications will not be significant as the intensity of the use is not proposed to be significantly increased/ The facility will maintain a similar footprint and useable internal area to the existing.

 

The proportions, massing colours, materials and finishes proposed are considered to be satisfactory. The proposed design carries positive architectural merits and will be sympathetic to the characteristics of the existing locality. A condition is recommended to require prior approval of Council of the final external schedule of materials.

 

The removal of the existing tree will not be of significant consequence to the visual amenity, as supplementary trees will be provided as well as existing large trees further north will be retained. In addition, the removal will resolve any safety issues with respect to conflict of tree branches with overhead powerlines.

 

The proposed development will be satisfactory with respect to the relevant matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions outlined in this report.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 262/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing Coogee Senior Citizens Centre, at No. 97R Brook Street, Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 97R Brook Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D58/14

 

 

Subject:                  5 Pardey Street, Kingsford (DA/281/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/281/2014

Author:                   Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and addition to the front of the existing dwelling house including construction of a new hard stand car space

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Ms S C Kazacos

Owner:                        Ms S C Kazacos

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview70695.png

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee and assessed by an external planning Consultant as a neighbouring property owner is a Council employee and Council employees reside in the subject property.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations to the dwelling and construction of a hardstand car parking space.

 

          Demolition

·      Removal of existing front balcony floor, roof and front wall (retain piers);

·      Removal of western portion of the front fence;

·      Removal of a 5m Cypress Pine tree from the front yard.

 

          Construction

·      Replacement of balcony roof with kliplop metal sheeting;

·      Construction of hardstand car parking space in front setback

·      Replacement of front fence with brick piers and new timber picket infill.

 

Site

 

The property, number 5 Pardey Street, Kingsford is a single storey free standing dwelling on the southern side of Pardey Street. The site area is 407.3m², the 107m² dwelling sits to the front of the site and provides adequate private open space. The neighbouring property to the east is a single storey dwelling of similar size and the property to the west is modern two storey dwelling with front setback carport.

 

Description: 5 pardey

Aerial photograph of 5 Pardey Street, Kingsford.

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:

 

3 Pardey Street, Kingsford

 

Issue

Comments

Council verge tree should not be moved

There is a small recently planted Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) growing in the Council nature strip which will need to be relocated two-three metres to the east. Council’s Tree Management Coordinator has no objection to the tree being moved as it will not have any impact on the overall health and long-term viability of the tree. Council can move the tree at a cost to the applicant.

Removal of Cypress Pine tree from front yard

Council’s Tree Management Coordinator has no objection to the removal of the Cypress Pine. Refer to Key Issues for further details. 

Increased noise and light pollution

Potential impacts of the proposed development are considered to be minimal and reasonable and consistent with that expected within the context of a low density area and suburban nature.

Loss of privacy

The proposed development will not result in a loss of privacy to the neighbouring property as movements will be directly between the dwelling and the vehicle.  

Request for privacy screen alongside fence at front of premises.

The potential noise and light pollution generated by the development is considered to be reasonable and consistent with that expected within a residential environment. In this case a privacy screen is not warranted.

 

Key Issues

 

·      Removal of trees

 

Council’s Tree Management Coordinator has provided the followed assessment

 

“There are no existing trees covered by Clause 5.9 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan [RLEP] and Part B5 of the Randwick Development Control Plan [DCP] growing within the property that will be affected by this proposal.

 

The only tree growing inside the front of the property that will be affected is a Cypress pine that is five metres in height with a canopy spread of two-and-a-half metres.

 

Because of the size of this tree it is exempt from the preservation of trees and vegetation provisions of Council’s RLEP and DCP and can therefore be removed without the consent of Council.

 

The subject tree is growing directly underneath two sets of domestic service wires and the canopy will grow into those wires within a relatively short period of time.

 

In addition, Cypress pines are not conducive to the type of pruning that would be required to maintain statutory clearances and any such pruning would destroy the symmetry of the tree.

 

There is a small recently planted Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) growing in the Council nature strip which will need to be relocated two-three metres to the east should the proposal be approved.

 

This could be undertaken by Council’s Tree Gang arborists with no adverse impact being caused to its overall health and long-term viability.”

 

·      Landscaping

The proposed development includes a 3m wide hardstand car parking space. The front setback provides sufficient deep soil area for landscaping and grass in accordance with Council’s DCP.

 

·      Car space

The development proposes a single car parking space, 3m in width, located to the front of the site.

 

It is considered that there is no alternative onsite location and that the proposal will not adversely affect the visual amenity of the streetscape.

 

There is sufficient space within the front setback for landscaping purposes.

 

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 subject land is located within Zone R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The proposed development, being alterations and addition to the front of the existing dwelling house including construction of a new hard stand car space, is permissible within the zone with development consent.

 

One (1) submission  was received during the exhibition process. The matters raised in the submission related to removal of a tree, noise, air and light pollution and reduced privacy. Council’s Tree Management Coordinator has no objection to the removal of the Cypress Pine tree due to its size and location. The remaining issues are considered to be reasonable within the low density suburban nature of the area.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs.  Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No. DA/281/2014 may be supported.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

A.       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/281/2014 for Alterations and addition to the front of the existing dwelling house including construction of a new hard stand car space, at No. 5 Pardey Street, Kingsford, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

2.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $220 to Council,

 

a)  Being the cost for Council to remove and relocate the existing street tree specimen of Blueberry Ash ($200) + GST.

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399 0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working week’s notice to arrange for removal and relocation of the street tree at the completion of works.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5 Pardey Street, Kingsford

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D59/14

 

 

Subject:                  77 Storey Street, Maroubra (DA/295/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/295/2014

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    The demolition of existing carport alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, deck and awning to rear and new carport to front

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Helen Waite

Owner:                        John & Helen Waite

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview66379.png

 

 

 

 

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, Stavrinos and Andrews.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the following works:

·      New first floor addition to accommodate three additional bedrooms and one bathroom with access into roof space.

·      New rear ground floor deck and pergola structure adjoining lounge room.

·      Re-construct carport located within the front setback.

·      Minor internal alterations to the ground floor plan.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Storey Street and is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The site has a frontage width of 6.615 metres, a side boundary depth of 42.585 metres and an overall site area of 282.1m².  

 

Neighbouring the property to the north is Snape Park, to the east is the other half of the semi-detached dwelling, to the west is a single storey free-standing dwelling and to the rear is an existing two storey free-standing dwelling. The immediate locality is predominately low density residential in nature and consists of detached dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings.

 

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:

 

81-83 Storey Street, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

The objector is concerned that the proposed first floor addition will result in overshadowing to the objectors private open space and habitable living areas.

 

The proposed first floor addition is not expected to result in significant overshadowing impacts to the objectors premises. Council’s controls specify that a minimum of three hours of direct solar access is required between the hours of 8am – 4pm to the private open space areas and north facing living room windows.

The proposal will continue to provide more than the required three hours of solar access during the morning and noon periods and will comply with Council’s controls.

The objector is concerned with the visual privacy impacts from the southern facing window.

Noted. To maintain a reasonable level of privacy to the adjoining neighbour a suitable condition of consent has been included that the first floor south facing window (W10) must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

 

Key Issues

 

·      Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 – C1: Low Density Residential

 

Section 5: Amenity

Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy

The first floor bedroom window along the southern elevation will result in direct overlooking into the private open spaces of the adjoining dwellings and does not comply with the objectives of the RDCP 2012. The objectives for visual privacy specify that new development must minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain a reasonable level of privacy. To reduce the overlooking impacts to the neighbouring dwellings a suitable condition of consent has been included that the first floor south facing window (W10) must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

Notwithstanding this, the proposal includes the construction of a new ground floor deck located at the rear of the dwelling. The new deck is 290mm above the existing ground level and will allow direct overlooking over the 1.8 metre high side boundary fence and into the private open space at no. 75 and 79 Storey Street. To maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy of the adjacent dwellings a suitable condition of consent has been included for privacy screens at a height of 1.6 metres be installed along the eastern and western edges of the rear ground floor deck.

 

Section 6: Car Parking and Access

Clause 6.6: Carport Configuration

The proposal involves the reconstruction of an existing carport structure located forward of the front building alignment. In accordance with the RDCP 2012 the maximum building height for a carport with a pitched roof is 3 metres and the maximum width is 3 metres (excluding the eaves). The proposed front carport has a dutch hipped roof and is 3.4 metres in height and 3.2 metres in width which does not comply with Council’s controls. However, the non-compliance will not visually dominate the property frontage and will maintain the streetscape character given there are a number of carport structures that are similar in height and width and located to the front of the neighbouring premises (in particular no. 59 Storey Street). In addition to this, the subject site will continue to provide ample areas of soft landscaping within the front setback and will not impact the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. In considering the above, it is expected the proposal will continue to meet the objectives of the DCP for carport configuration.

 

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 alterations and first floor additions and new front carport will comply with the relevant development assessment criteria of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and with the objectives of the Part C1: Low Density Residential of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2012. The proposed development is not expected to result in any unreasonable or significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/295/2014 for the demolition of existing carport alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, deck and awning to rear and new carport to front, at No. 77 Storey Street, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the eastern and western edges of the ground floor deck. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

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

 

·           W10 – First floor, southern facing bedroom window

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 77 Storey Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D60/14

 

 

Subject:                  11 Lurline Street, Maroubra
(DA/161/2009/D)

Folder No:                   DA/161/2009/D

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of approved development by revision of entry design, internal changes, alterations to openings including new windows on south west and north west elevations, changes to rear terrace, alteration to slab design, and changes to facade and roof materials. Original consent: Alterations and additions to existing dwelling

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Architectural Projects

Owner:                        Dr B K C Pang

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 of 25 August 2009.

 

The subject section 96 (2) application seeks approval to modify the approved development consent by revising the entry design, internal changes and alterations to various openings including new windows on the south west and north west elevations, changes to the rear terrace, alterations to the slab design and changes to the facade and roof materials.

 

1.      Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks to amend the approved plans as follows:

 

Lower Ground Floor

§  Revised laundry and bath plan

§  South-west windows to study removed

§  Window to study revised (decrease in size)

§  Revised rear terrace/landscaping and associated works

§  Revised driveway finish material

§  Revised external finishes

 

Ground Floor

§  Revised entry layout

§  Decreased in size of terrace adjacent to family room

§  Lounge room windows dimensions revised

§  Window to kitchen revised (decrease in size)

§  Revised external finishes

 

First Floor

§  First floor existing slab demolished, new concrete/timber floor installed in same location

§  Revised window to bed 1 (south-west elevation)

§  Revised external finishes

§  New external timber screen to south west elevation

§  Window to ensuite (bed 1) decreased in size

§  Bed 1 window dimensions revised (north-west elevation)

§  New window added to stair

 

Ground Floor

§  Roof material changed

 

2.      Site

 

The site is on the south-eastern side of Lurline St south of Mermaid Ave, Maroubra and is presently occupied by an existing part 2 and 3 storey dwelling. The subject site has a regular rectangular shape and slopes moderately on a northerly aspect.

 

The subject site is rectangular in shape and has the following dimensions and land area:

 

 Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern western, front boundary to Lurline Street

12.19m

427.26m2

 

 

 

North Eastern, side boundary

35.05m

South western, side boundary

35.05m

South eastern, rear boundary

12.19m

 

Figure1. Subject Site

 

Neighbouring the property to the north east and south west are part two and part three storey dwellings and to the rear is a two storey dwelling. The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by low density residential development and consists predominantly of detached single dwellings.

 

The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and is subject to Clause 6.7 of the LEP 2012 for foreshore scenic protection area.

 

3.      Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, there was one submission received:

 

9 Lurline Street, Maroubra

Objection

Comment

·        Objection to the height and structure of the proposed chain mesh vegetation privacy screen in terms of visual bulk and scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·        Objection to the extension of the lower ground floor rear terrace, due to loss of landscaped area.

·      The proposal includes 4 steel posts with chain mesh (to provide vegetation privacy screen) to a height of 3.51m above existing ground level. It is considered that this structure is excessive in size and scale when viewed from the neighbouring properties, No.9 Lurline streets’ natural ground level is an additional 1.2m lower than the subject site. The screen will set an undesirable precedent in the foreshore area. An appropriate condition has been included in the development consent deleting the structure from the application.

 

·      The lower ground floor rear terrace which is to be extended by an additional 27.52m² will result in a reduced deep soil area available on site.  The RDCP 2013 requires a minimum 25% deep soil area to be provided. The approved development will contribute 18.5% deep soil area whilst the subject s96 modification will result in only 14% deep soil area available on site.

 

It is considered that the non-compliance with the numerical controls will result in insufficient deep soil area to assist with storm water infiltration. The further reduction of deep soil area on site is not supported and as a result an appropriate condition has been included in the consent requiring permeable pavers replace the lower ground floor rear terrace extension.

 

 

4.      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:

 

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 revision of entry design, internal changes, alterations to openings including new windows on south west and north west elevations, changes to rear terrace, alteration to slab design, and changes to facade and roof materials. 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.

 

4.1      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

§  Clauses 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio

The allowable FSR applicable to the site is 0.75:1 under the current LEP 2012.  The existing dwelling has an FSR of 0.95:1. The approved development has an FSR of 0.878:1, when calculated in accordance with the definition for “gross floor area” as defined by the current Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

The modifications the entry way to the front of the dwelling will result in a 0.02m² reduction in gross floor area; it is considered that it will not create any additional impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties or character of the streetscape as it will not increase the size, scale or bulk of the development. 

 

The proposed works will be consistent with the objectives of the RLEP 2012 in that the scale and mass of the modified development will achieve a suitable urban design outcome that will complement the desirable streetscape character of the locality.

 

4.2    Comprehensive Development Control Plan

 

§  Landscaped area

The subject site is 427.2m², meaning that it requires a minimum 25% deep soil area under the numerical controls in the RDCP 2013. The current approved development contains 18.5% deep soil area, as per the section 96 modifications, the lower ground floor rear terrace is to be extended by an additional 27.52m². This will result in a reduced deep soil area available on site.  The subject s96 modification will result in only 14% deep soil area available on site.

 

The Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 identifies landscaping and permeable surfaces provisions and objectives for dwellings. Compliance with the numerical controls ensures that the following objective is met for the subject proposal:

 

To assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

It is considered that the non-compliance with the relevant numerical controls will result in insufficient deep soil area to assist with storm water infiltration. The further reduction of deep soil area on site is not supported and as a result an appropriate condition has been included in the consent requiring the lower ground floor rear terrace extension to be replaced by permeable pavers.

 

§  Privacy

The proposal includes various window changes on all elevations, the majority of window changes result in the window openings being reduced in size and will not adversely affect the privacy of the adjoining properties. There area several window changes to the rear façade and street elevation, these window changes will not create any additional overlooking or privacy impact on the adjoining properties.

 

Window W101 at first floor level on the south-west elevation is a new side elevation window replacing the existing splayed window located to the front of the property. It is considered that this window will not create any additional overlooking or privacy impact on the adjoining property at No.11a Lurline Street.

 

The proposal also seeks approval to erect 4 steel posts with mesh for vegetation privacy screening to a height of 3.5m above the existing ground level. It is considered that this privacy screen structure will be excessive in size and scale when viewed from the neighbouring properties, No.9 Lurline streets’ natural ground level is an additional 1.2m lower than the subject site. The screen will set an undesirable precedent in the foreshore area. An appropriate condition has been included in the development consent deleting the structure from the application.

 

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

 

Overall, the essence of the application is not changing and it complies with the majority of the RDCP 2013 controls. Where the proposed modifications are identified as not meeting the relevant numerical controls or objectives of the RDCP2013 or have the potential to cause adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, suitable conditions are included to ameliorate these issues. Consequently, the proposal modifications, as conditioned, are suitable for the site, they satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/161/2009/D by revising the entry design, internal changes and alterations to various openings including new windows on the south west and north west elevations, changes to the rear terrace, alterations to the slab design and changes to the facade and roof materials at 11 Lurline Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Revision

Dated

Received

DA 01

Architectural projects

Issue E

22/07/2009

3 June 2009

DA 03

Issue D

5/06/2009

DA 04

Issue C

5/06/2009

DA 05

Issue C

5/06/2009

DA 06

Issue C

22/07/2009

DA 07

Issue E

22/07/2009

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 “B” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Revision

Dated

Received

DA 01

Architectural projects

Issue J

29/03/2010

29 March 2010

DA 03

Issue H

29/03/2010

29 March 2010

DA 04

Issue G

29/03/2010

29 March 2010

DA 05

Issue H

29/03/2010

29 March 2010

DA 06

Issue G

29/03/2010

29 March 2010

DA 07

Issue J

29/03/2010

29 March 2010

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 “C” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Revision

Dated

Received

DA 01

Architectural projects

Issue L

21/12/2012

21 January 2013

DA 03

Issue J

21/12/2012

21 January 2013

DA 04

Issue J

21/12/2012

21 January 2013

DA 05

Issue J

21/12/2012

21 January 2013

DA 06

Issue J

21/12/2012

21 January 2013

DA 07

 

Issue L

21/12/2012

21 January 2013

DA 09

 

Issue J

21/12/2012

21 January 2013

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A154453

17 January 2013

21 January 2013

 

as amended by the Section 96 “D” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Revision

Dated

Received

DA 01

Architectural projects

M

21/05/2014

22/05/2014

DA 02

K

21/05/2014

22/05/2014

DA 03

K

21/05/2014

22/05/2014

DA 04

K

19/05/2014

22/05/2014

DA 05

K

19/05/2014

22/05/2014

DA 06

 

M

19/05/2014

22/05/2014

DA 07

 

M

20/05/2014

22/05/2014

DA 08

 

B

19/05/2014

22/05/2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

A154453_02

19/05/2014

22/05/2014

 

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

 

Add Condition 52 to read:

52.   The proposed terrace slab extension to the rear of the existing dwelling at lower ground floor level is to be replaced with permeable paving to assist with stormwater infiltration on site. Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

Add Condition 53 to read:

53.   The steel post and chain mesh privacy screen proposed at lower ground floor level on the north-eastern elevation is excessive in size and shall be deleted from the plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 11 Lurline Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D61/14

 

 

Subject:                  9-11 Baden Street, Coogee (DA/750/2013)

Folder No:                   DA/750/2013

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing residential flat building containing 6 units and construction of new 4 storey residential flat building containing 7 units, basement car parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works (Variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mrs N Tsilikounas

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview68936.png

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Bowen, Neilson and Shurey.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing residential flat building containing 6 units and construction of new 4 storey residential flat building containing 7 units, basement car parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works (Variation to floor space ratio control).

 

Site

 

The site is a rectangular shaped allotment having a frontage to Baden Street of 14.935m and a site area of 591.8m2.

 

There is an existing residential flat building on the site which contains 6 dwellings.

 

The site slopes down from the rear to Baden Street at a grade of about 4%.

 

The locality is occupied by a mixture of interwar building with more contemporary developments interspersed and including a ten storey residential flat building at the cul-de-sac end of Baden Street.

 

The properties fronting Baden Street enjoy expansive views over Dunningham Reserve and Coogee Bay.

 

Description: U:\swainm1\Desktop\Randwick\DAs\9-11 Baden Street, Coogee\Site Photos 9-11 Baden\street view.jpg

Figure 1: Street view of subject site

Submissions

 

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

 

Issues

Comments

6/35 Arcadia Street, Coogee    

Concerned over the proposed increase in the height of the building and impact on existing views

See view loss assessment in key issues section of this report.

The proposed height of the building exceeds the maximum allowable height limit under the RLEP.

Amended drawings have been submitted showing corrected natural ground levels and confirmation that the proposed development will have a maximum height of 11.91m.

View impacts depicted in the photos accompanying the application do not show the actual view form the upper level.

See view loss assessment in key issues section of this report.

5/35 Arcadia Street, Coogee

 

Increase in height from 11.31m-12m will have a significant impact on existing views including Wylie’s Baths.

See view loss assessment in key issues section of this report.

1/37 Arcadia Street, Coogee

 

Proposed fourth floor represents an attack on the visual amenity of immediately adjoining developments.

A streetscape elevation has been provided which demonstrates the height of the proposed development is compatible with the heights of existing adjoining buildings and those in the wider streetscape.

Precedent for 4 storey development is undesirable.

The 12m height limit under the RLEP is the determinant in respect of acceptable height rather than the number of storeys. The development is within this limit.

Rich cultural heritage of Coogee being lost and replaced by concrete jungle.

The proposed development with a FSR 0.97:1 versus the existing building with a FSR 1.07:1 means that the overall bulk and scale of development on the site will be reduced.

1/5 Baden Street, Coogee

 

Dust, debris, excavation and construction noise.

Standard conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure protection of the amenity of surrounding residents during construction.

What compensation will surrounding residents be offered as compensation for noise levels.

Compensation is not a relevant consideration under the EP & A Act, 1979.

Headlights will cause unreasonable level of disturbance to unit and driveway should be relocated to the centre of the site.

The number of vehicular movements is not expected to cause unreasonable levels of amenity disturbance given that the proposed development of 7 units will replace an existing development of 6 units.

Units 1 & 3,4, 6 and submission on behalf of residents of 7 Baden Street, Coogee

 

Loss of solar access and overshadowing exacerbated by excess FSR.

Given the north south orientation of the site and proposed increase in side boundary setbacks as compared to the existing building, shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed development by 11.00am will not cast shadows over 7 Baden Street. This satisfies the criteria under the DCP and will result in a reduction of overshadowing impacts from the existing building. Natural light to adjoining properties will also increase.

Loss of views of Dunningham Reserve from living space and master bedrooms.

See view loss assessment in key issues section of this report.

Loss of visual and acoustic privacy/overlooking.

Window openings to the western boundary are adjacent to bedrooms only and facades of balconies on western ends are adequately screened.

Increase in ambient noise/Noise pollution particularly relating to underground car park and associated movements and light spill.

The existing building of 6 units will be replaced with a development containing 7 dwellings. The associated likely increase in noise impact is not considered to be substantial.

Loss of streetscape and identity of Baden Street.

Baden Street has no heritage status and the development in terms of its bulk scale and contribution to streetscape is considered acceptable.

Concern over strength and integrity of retaining walls during construction.

Standard conditions to ensure protection of amenity and assets of surrounding properties are included in the recommendation.

Traffic impacts associated with construction unacceptable.

Standard conditions to ensure protection of amenity of surrounding properties during construction are included in the recommendation.

Proposed building is being brought further forward than development at No 7 and increases height.

The proposed building will align itself with the established setback of the building on the objectors’ property, is within the allowable height limit and is considered a reasonable planning response.

Deep planting should be provided adjacent to 7 Baden Street.

The landscape plan provides sufficient perimeter landscaping above podium which coupled with proposed boundary fencing should ensure adequate privacy exists between developments.

Excessive FSR is not justified.

See cl.4.6 departure in key issues section of the report.

The balconies add additional bulk to the building.

The balconies are of an open nature with glass balustrading which will emphasize this aspect. Screening of these balconies along the western façade will ensure adequate levels of mutual privacy.

Solar access does not show impact on elevation of No7 Baden Street.

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that the shadows cast by the proposed development will not fall upon the building at No. 7 after 11.00am during the winter solstice. This impact is well within compliance with the requirements of the DCP.

Non-compliance with Council’s parking requirements and inadequate location of driveway.

The proposed development will provide a total of 10 spaces where no parking for the existing 6 units currently exists. The location of the driveway given its gradient adjacent to No. 7, proposed boundary fencing will ensure minimal light spill to No. 7.

 

Key Issues

 

1.1      Request to vary development standard

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

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

0.9:1

Proposal

0.97:1

Excess above RLEP Standard

7.3%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

·         The bulk, scale and height of the proposed development will be less than that of the existing building on the site and proposed built form is consistent with the desired future character of the area.

·         The excess floor space in this instance will have a negligible additional impact on adjoining properties beyond that of a complying form of development.

·         The proposed development is well articulated and responds reasonably to the environmental and energy needs, indicative by way of compliance with the BASIX requirements.

·         The streetscape elevation submitted with the application demonstrates a proposed development compatible with existing buildings in the streetscape.

·         The proposed development adequately takes account of impacts on adjoining properties in respect of visual bulk, loss of privacy and views; further it will reduce overshadowing impacts when compared to the existing building on the site.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

•      To protect the amenity of residents.

•      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

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

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone 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)     

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

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable FSR of buildings in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

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

 

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

The DCP outlines the following objectives and controls in relation to view sharing.

 

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. Essentially the objections were generated from No. 7 Baden Street immediately to the west of the subject site and No. 35 Arcadia Street, located behind the subject site. The property at Unit 6, 35 Arcadia Street was inspected which also allowed for an appreciation of the views currently obtained from Unit 5 which is on the same level and shareas a rear terrace area.

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview62066.png

 

Figure 2: The context of the view sharing issue in relation to the coastline.

Figure 3: Location of sites concerned with view sharing, in relation to the subject site.

 

Description: U:\swainm1\Desktop\Randwick\DAs\9-11 Baden Street, Coogee\Site Photos 9-11 Baden\IMG_2331.JPG

Description: U:\swainm1\Desktop\Randwick\DAs\9-11 Baden Street, Coogee\Site Photos 9-11 Baden\IMG_2333.JPG

Figure 4: Standing view from common rear landing between units 5 and 6, 35 Arcadia Street.

Figure 5: View from seated position rear kitchen table of unit 6, 35 Arcadia Street.

Figure 6: Photomontage taken from rear fire stair provided by applicant showing impact of additional height of 710mm above the existing building to be demolished and that the additional setback to western boundary of proposed 2.8m – 3.6m vs existing building of 1.15m will provide a widened view corridor to a water and land interface that does not currently exist.

 

Description: U:\swainm1\Desktop\Randwick\DAs\9-11 Baden Street, Coogee\Site Photos 9-11 Baden\IMG_3170.JPG

Description: U:\swainm1\Desktop\Randwick\DAs\9-11 Baden Street, Coogee\Site Photos 9-11 Baden\IMG_3192.JPG

Figures 7 and 8: Current outlook from living areas and master bedroom of unit 3, 7 Baden Street.

 

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.

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

 

“For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.”

 


View sharing from properties in Arcadia Street

 

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

 

·      Units 5 and 6 of No. 35 Arcadia Street, Coogee.

As depicted in the photos above, the view currently obtained from these properties is from the rear kitchen window of units 5 and 6 and a common rear landing to fire stairs. The anticipated view loss is reasonably demonstrated in the photos taken during inspection and the photomontage provided by the applicant who shows that the existing view corridor between the properties at 7 and 9 Baden street will be significantly widened by way of the proposed development.

 


View sharing from property at 7 Baden Street

 

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

 

·      Units 1 – 6, 7 Baden Street Coogee

 

The photos depicted above are taken from Unit 3, 7 Baden Street which is on the middle floor (eastern side) of the existing 3 storey residential flat building. The loss is more of outlook to Dunningham reserve by way of the setback of the proposed development to align with the setback of the existing building on the objectors’ property. The view loss anticipated is across a side boundary and the front living areas of all units within that building will continue to retain unimpeded views southward across Coogee Bay.

 

 

Principle 3: Assess the extent of the impact.

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

 

As detailed in the above analysis, the view loss from the properties in Arcadia Street will result from the increased height of the proposed development of 710mm above the height of the existing building. Nonetheless the proposed height remains under the 12m maximum allowable under the RLEP.

 

Given that the proposal will also provide an increased view corridor by way a significantly increased setback of the proposed development from the existing 1.15m to a minimum of 2.6m, the overall loss is considered to be minor and sustainable.

 

Similarly the outlook from the all units within the residential flat building at No. 7 Baden Street will continue to maintain expansive outlook and views from all units to Dunningham Reserve and Coogee Bay. The impact in this regard is considered to be negligible to minor.

 

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

“A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.”

 

The proposal involves a departure from the floor space ratio of 7.3% from the standard in the context of an existing development on the site which has a FSR which departs from the standard by 19.4%. However, it is noted that if the development were reduced in floor area to comply with the 0.9:1 limitation, this would likely involve a reduction in the size of the upper floor level in order to comply. The resultant reduction would have a nil additional compensatory effect on the view loss.

 

With respect to the height of the building, the ability to achieve a further reduction so as not to exceed the height of the existing building has been explored and would result in an unacceptable compromise on the integrity of the car park driveway gradient. The proposed ceiling heights are compliant with the minimum DCP requirement of 2.7m and the proposed roof form is flat roof with a minimum parapet height such that other opportunities to further reduce the height are not available.

 

The proposed development is considered to embody a skillful design with an associated reasonable and sustainable impact in relation to view sharing.

 

1.3      Deep Soil Landscaped Area

Section 2.2.2 of the DCP requires a minimum of 25% of the site area as deep soil landscaped area. The proposal in this instance incorporates a provision of 18% representing a shortfall of 41.06m2.

 

The DCP objectives in respect of landscaped open space and deep soil area are:

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

·      To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

·      To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

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

 

The applicant has submitted thee following justification in relation to the shortfall:

The above reasons are considered valid in the circumstances. Whilst a small additional area of deep soil landscaped area could be achieved if the visitor’s space were removed and the basement level reduced in area accordingly, the engineering services unit on this occasion prefers provision of this space. Moreover, taking account of other site constraints and a landscaping concept that has been assessed as acceptable for the development, the departure from the strict numerical requirements is justified and the objectives of the DCP provision are achieved.

 

1.4      External Wall and Ceiling Height

The DCP outlines the following objectives in this regard:

 

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

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

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

The DCP limits the external wall height to 10.5m and the proposed development incorporates external wall heights ranging from 9.25m to 11.91m at the highest point.

 

Despite the strict non-compliance with the maximum external wall height control under the DCP, objectives of the control are satisfied in that:

 

·        The flat roof line provides for an interesting roof form with an acceptable aesthetic impact, the building includes substantial articulation to allow for a compatible presentation to the streetscape.

·        The proposed ceiling heights of 2.7m of habitable rooms and inclusion of clerestory window openings in the upper level adequately promote light and quality of internal spaces in a form which has been supported by the SEPP 65 – Design Review Panel.

·        The proposed bulk and scale of the development will be less than the existing building on the property. The impacts of overshadowing will be improved to adjoining properties and privacy and visual amenity have been reasonably addressed in the form of the proposed development.

 

Having regard to the above assessment, departure from the external wall height requirement of Council’s DCP is supported.

 

1.5      Car Parking    

The proposed development results in a strict numerical shortfall of 0.55 car spaces.

 

This aspect is addressed by the engineering services unit in the referral section of the compliance report attached to this summary and the minor departure is supported in this instance.

 

1.6      Trees on Adjoining Property 15 Baden Street, Coogee.

Concerns were initially raised by Council’s engineering services unit in relation to the ability to guarantee the preservation of a number of existing trees on the adjoining property. The referrals section of the compliance report addresses this matter in detail. Additional information has submitted in this regard and no objection is raised subject to the inclusion of a number of standard conditions which will ensure the retention of the potentially affected trees.

 

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 represents a sound planning response to the site constraints and opportunities.

 

The departure from the development standard in this instance is justified and the development will have sustainable impacts on surrounding properties and the locality.

 

It is recommended that the application be approved.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.4 (2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to the maximum allowable floor space ratio for 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 & Environment 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. 750/2013 for demolition of the existing the residential flat building and construction of new 4 storey residential flat building containing 7 units, basement car parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works (Variation to floor space ratio control) at No. 9 – 11 Baden Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 9 - 11 Baden Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D62/14

 

 

Subject:                  78-80 Wild Street, Maroubra (DA/283/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/283/2014

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Subdivision of the existing attached semi detached dwellings into two Torrens title lots

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Raine & Horne Coogee

Owner:                        Mr P Brown

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview70227.png

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed lots have a shortfall greater than 10% to the 400m2 minimum lot size standards under Clause 4.1(3) of the RLEP 2012.

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to Torrens title subdivide the allotment of land to accommodate the pair of semi detached dwelling houses built circa pre-1930 onto separate allotments.

 

The proposed allotments comprise:

 

•      Lot 100: 302.6m2 with a frontage of 9.225m and

•      Lot 101: 299.5m2 with a frontage of 9.065m

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Wild Street in Maroubra and is presently occupied by an existing pair of single storey semi detached dwellings.  The total site has an area of 602.1m2 a total site frontage width of 18.29m, side boundary depths of 32.92m.  Neighbouring the property to the north and south are single storey detached dwellings. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of significantly sized dwellings, and semi detached dwellings As is evidence by a walk through the surrounding street network, pairs of semi detached dwellings prevail on streets such as Paine Street, Nagle Avenue, Chichester Street, Walsh Avenue, Robey Street and Donovan Avenue. The vast majority of these semi detached dwellings are located on separately titled Torrens lots as is shown by the aerial photo and cadastral image below.

 

Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding sites.

 

 

Figure 2 is cadastral image of surrounding streets containing similarly sized allotments of land and old semi detached dwellings.

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

 

1.      Minimum allotment size - subdivision

Clause 4.1 (3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 states:

 

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

 

Pursuant to Clauses 4.1(3) of the RLEP, the minimum allotment size for subdivision of land zoned R2 zone is 400sqm per allotment and the proposal contravenes the standard as contained in clause 4.1 (3) of RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Lot 100 – 78 Wild Street

Lot 101 – 80 Wild Street

Proposal

302.6m

299.5m

Variation

97.4m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 24% shortfall.

100.5m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 25% shortfall.

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard

 

2.      Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the minimum lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1(3) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

Assessing officer’s comment:

 

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of Minimum Subdivision Lot size standard, it is considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, as follows:

 

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

 

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. There is no physical development sought and the sites will be similarly configured in terms of layout to other properties in the surrounding area containing aged semi detached housing. In other words there will not be any adverse impacts as a result of the development. Moreover the existing development on site complies with the vast majority of controls and objectives for low density development under the RDCP 2013 (see Compliance report under separate cover). See also further discussion of subdivision under objective c further below.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The development standards for minimum allotment sizes are intended to maintain the existing character of the R2 zone and to ensure acceptable environmental outcomes from housing that are suitably located with access to services, transport, shops and the like, whilst minimising the impact on adjoining neighbours and maintaining or enhancing neighbourhood character.

 

Although the proposed land sizes of both lots have significant shortfalls to the current standards, it is not uncommon for semis constructed in the early 1900s through to the 1960s to be sited on small sized lots with small frontages and for these to have been subdivided around the late 1950’s and 1960’s. The historical nature of the existing semi detached dwellings on separate lots and the size of other separately titled old semis in the locality mean that the proposed subdivision would be suitable for its purpose.

 

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

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

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

 

The size of immediately adjoining sites are larger than the proposed lot sizes, however these sites contain single detached dwellings and not considered a suitable basis for reference. More pertinent to this application, and as shown in figure 2 above, those lots in the surrounding street networks that contain old semi detached dwellings are in fact sited on similarly sized lots to those being sought as part of this application. Therefore, having regard to the applicant’s submission and the objectives for subdivision, it is considered that the proposed subdivision both in terms of layout and building design respects the relevant subdivision pattern in the locality.

 

In terms of future development opportunities, it is likely that the lot sizes will permit the scale of development commensurate with other small sized semi-detached residential dwellings in the locality. It is also considered, that the age of the semi detached dwellings means that the proposal would not set a precedent for permitting substantial shortfalls to lot sizes of more recent dual occupancy developments within R2 zoned land, which were only allowed so as to assist with housing affordability and intra family arrangements.

 

Overall, having regard to the abovementioned objectives, the exception to the development standard addresses the consistency of the proposed development with the objectives of the standard, the relevant aims and objectives of the RLEP and objectives of the Act, in so far as the historical context of the site, and where similar circumstances apply, applying the minimum allotment size standard to the proposed subdivision is unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

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

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality, fits in with the subdivision layout and character of similar developments and is representative of the most orderly and economic use of the site.

 

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 minimum lot size standard. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

 

•    To 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.

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is consistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·      The proposed subdivision maintains the low density residential nature of the site

 

·      The amenity of residents will not be affected by any works associated with the subdivision

 

·      The proposed development is consistent with the separate company title tenure which currently exists on site whereby the two sites have been separately rated for a significant period

 

·      The separate tenure applied to old semi detached dwellings has been a consistent approach taken by Council

 

·      The separate tenure will not cumulatively transform the character and density within the R2 zone in so far as the above-mentioned circumstances apply.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it represents the most orderly use of the site, it does not contravene the purpose of the standard, and it maintains the low density character of the area and therefore satisfies the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential zone.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for minimum allotment size  in clause 4.1 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the minimum lot size standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit 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.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed subdivision meets the relevant assessment criteria having regard to the objectives of the minimum allotment size standard and the R2 zone objectives under the RLEP 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The circumstances of the case, such as the old age of the semi detached dwellings, the prevalence of separately titled semi detached dwellings in the surrounding area, ensure that the character and density of the R2 Low Density Zone is protected from any inordinate changes. Combined with the exception to the development standard it is considered that a well-founded planning argument is made and it is unreasonable and unnecessary to strictly apply the minimum allotment size standard to the proposal. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.1(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to minimum allotment sizes, 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 & Environment 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/283/2014 for Subdivision of the existing attached semi detached dwellings into two Torrens title lots, at No. 78-80 Wild Street, Maroubra, subject to the following standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 78 - 80 Wild Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D63/14

 

 

Subject:                  41 Fowler Crescent, Maroubra (DA/297/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/297/2014

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                              Construction of a deck around the existing pool with a privacy screen on the eastern end, new pool fencing, replacement of the door at the rear of the dwelling, a new highlight window on the northern side of the dwelling, alterations to the eastern boundary wall and fence, and associated landscaping

 

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Alpha Techne Constructions

Owner:                        Mr K G Tickle

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview70325.png

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Stavrinos, Andrews, Nash and Seng.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for the construction of a deck around the existing pool with a privacy screen located to the eastern end, new pool fencing, a replacement door to the rear of dwelling, a new highlight window on the northern side of the dwelling, alterations to the eastern boundary wall and fence, and associated landscaping.

 

Work at the subject site has commenced (as can be seen in the Figure 1 & 2 below), as the applicant was under the assumption that they were carrying out the work in accordance with Building Approval granted in 1988 that was commenced and also that the work fell under the category of Exempt Development. Council was notified on 8/5/2014 that works were being undertaken at the subject site without consent. As a result Council’s Regulatory and Compliance Department have made comment and appropriate conditions were recommended to be included in the development consent. It should be noted that Council cannot grant retrospective approval for the works already completed.

 

Figure 1. Proposed Deck

 

Figure 2. View to Rear adjoining property

Site

 

The subject site is on the eastern side of Fowler Crescent and is an irregular shape having a street frontage of 16.6m, a depth of 31.8m and an area of 512m. The site contains at present a two storey dwelling house at the front of the site and to the rear of the site a swimming pool with associate landscape works. 

 

Figure 3. Subject Site

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick comprehensive DCP. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

18 Foot Place, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

·      Concerns regarding drainage from the subject site.

 

 

·      Objection to illegal works being undertaken.

·    Standard drainage conditions have been included in the development consent.

 

·    It is noted that works have commenced without Council consent. The proposal was referred to Councils Building Regulatory and Compliance team and appropriate conditions were recommended to be included in the development consent.

 

16 Foot Place, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

·      The plans do not show sufficient measurements or RL’s.

 

 

 

 

·      Loss of privacy and potential overlooking into the rear yard of the 16 Foot Place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      Acoustic privacy concerns.

 

 

 

 

·      Concerns over the structural integrity of the existing boundary fence.

 

 

 

·      Concerns regarding drainage from the subject site.

 

·      Works have been undertaken without approval and do not match those approved under DA/125/1988.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overshadowing concerns.

 

 

·    The submitted plans are to a scale of 1:100 as per council requirements. It is also considered that the proposal did not require a detailed survey to be submitted in order to allow for a proper assessment against council controls.

 

·      The proposed deck includes a 1.8m high privacy screen to the northern edge to prevent overlooking. In addition the proposal includes a 1.8m high privacy screen along the eastern boundary. These works in addition to the 3m high plant screening provided to No.16 Foot place mitigates any potential overlooking into the neighbouring property.

 

·      It is considered that the proposal will not increase or change the use of the backyard, nor result in an increase in potential acoustic impact from what is existing on site.

 

·      A structural engineers report was submitted to council on the 5/06/2014 detailing that remedial action taken by No. 41 Fowler Crescent is structurally adequate for preventing the fence from collapsing.

 

·      Standard drainage conditions have been included in the development consent.

 

·      It is noted that works have commenced without Council consent. The proposal was referred to Councils Building Regulatory and Compliance team and appropriate conditions were recommended to be included in the development consent. The proposal has been assessed against the relevant objectives and controls in the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013.

 

·      The subject site is located to the west of No. 16 Foot Place. The maximum 1.8m timber panel privacy screen proposed sits below the 3m high plant screening provided to No.16 Foot Place. It is considered that there will be no additional overshadowing to the objectors property from the proposed works.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Unauthorised Works

Works were commenced on site by the applicant under the assumption that they were in accordance with BA/125/1988 and fell under the category of Exempt Development. Council was notified on 8/5/2014 that works were being undertaken at the subject site without consent. The proposal was referred to Council’s Building Regulatory and Compliance section as the works had already commenced prior to approval being granted; as a result a ‘stop work order’ was placed on the subject site and appropriate conditions were recommended to be included in the development consent at the request of  Council’s Regulatory Team.

 

As retrospective approval cannot be given for any building works completed, an appropriate condition has been included in the development consent granting approval for the use of the subject development but not for any building works already completed prior to the consent being granted.

 

Privacy

The proposed 900mm raised rear deck is located to the rear of the existing dwelling, a 1.8m privacy screen is proposed to the eastern edge closest to the rear boundary between No.16 Foot Place and the subject site.

 

In addition to the proposed 1.8m privacy screen, there is an existing 3m high hedge that has existed on site for some time (present on No. 16 Foot Place). Whilst the hedge cannot be considered as a primary privacy measure it can be considered as a secondary privacy measure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 4. View from objectors property                             Figure 5. View from subject site (conditioned privacy screen located to edge of deck, shown in orange)

 

 

The 1.8m high privacy (which is proposed to the same height as the previously existing and approved lattice screen) will adequately screen the neighbouring properties from the existing ground level. The additional impacts resulting from the elevated deck is considered to be minimal from what is existing on site, as seen in figure 6 and 7 below.

 

Description: DSC05791

Figure 6. View from proposed deck towards rear adjoining neighbour.

 

Description: DSC05783

Figure 7. Existing View from sliding glass doors to rear living area

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the additional impact resulting from the elevated deck is negligible, the applicant has agreed to extend the 1.8m high privacy screen proposed to the eastern end of the elevated deck, 1m along the adjoining southern edge It is considered that this will further reduce any possible overlooking from the rear deck extension.

 

Whilst the proposed elevated deck is larger than what previously existed on site, it is shown from figures 8 and 9 below that the view from the edge of the proposed elevated deck does not significantly add to any overlooking of the rear adjoining neighbour from the previously approved veranda. The additional impact is considered minimal and the proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

Figure 8. View from the existing deck towards rear adjoining neighbour.

 

 

Figure 9. View from the proposed deck towards rear adjoining neighbour.

 

Notwithstanding the above the proposed rear elevated deck will result in some overlooking to the side adjoining property at No. 43 Fowler Crescent. This can be seen from figure 10, below. To mitigate the potential privacy impact an appropriate condition has been included in the development consent requiring a privacy screen be installed along the southern edge of the deck.

 

Description: DSC_0281

Figure 10. View over southern boundary to No. 43 Fowler Crescent.

 

It is considered that the proposal in conjunction with the included conditions will not result in any adverse privacy impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Subject to the recommended conditions, the development scheme will not generate unreasonable adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/297/2014 for the construction of a deck around the existing pool with a privacy screen on the eastern end, new pool fencing, replacement of door at the rear of the dwelling, a new highlight window on the northern side of the dwelling, alterations to the eastern boundary wall and fence, and associated landscaping at 41 Fowler Crescent, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     This consent does not include approval for any internal/external building works carried out prior to the issuing of this consent.

b.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above the finished deck level is to be provided to the southern edge of the rear deck at ground floor level. The total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceeding 25% of the area of the screen. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

c.     The proposed privacy screen on the eastern edge of the rear deck at ground floor level is to be extended for 1m along the adjoining southern edge. The total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceeding 25% of the area of the screen. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

d.     The total area of any openings within the privacy screen proposed to the eastern edge of the rear deck at ground floor level must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

 

Requirements before a construction certificate can be issued

7.       Certification from a suitably qualified structural engineer is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council certifying the structural adequacy of the existing decking. If any elements of the decking are found to be inadequate, then the rectification works shall be included in the Construction Certificate to ensure the structural adequacy of the deck and supporting elements/ members.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 41 Fowler Crescent, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D64/14

 

 

Subject:                  23 McKeon Street, Maroubra
(DA/226/2008/B)

Folder No:                   DA/226/2008/B

Author:                   Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by the deletion of two windows at first floor on south-western side and addition of first floor window on south-eastern side

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr J Giavis

Owner:                        Mr J Giavis

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview66389.png

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks to modify the original consent, which was determined at the Planning Committee meeting of 10 February 2009 for the construction of two additional one bedroom units at the rear of existing two storey residential flat building.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The proposal includes the deletion of two windows at first floor on south-western side, addition of first floor window (W24) on south-eastern side and amending condition 3 of the consent requiring provision of fixed opaque/translucent glazing on the north-west and south-east elevations.

 

The applicant indicated that the works have been completed prior to the lodgement of this application. The windows subject to condition 3 have been constructed with sliding opaque/translucent glazing. Thus, the modification of the approved development is for retrospective approval of works as executed. Council’s Building Regulation and Compliance section was notified and no objection is provided subject to further amenity impact assessment.

 

2.         Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of McKeon Street, west of the intersection of McKeon Street and Fenton Avenue. The site is a regular shaped allotment with a frontage to McKeon Street and a rear boundary of 13.41m, and northern and southern side boundaries of 36.575m. The subject site has an area of 490.5m2. Development adjacent to the site to the north is a two storey residential flat building at No. 21 McKeon Street, to the west is a three-storey residential flat building fronting Fenton Avenue (No. 2-4 Fenton Avenue); to the south is a part single and part two storey mixed use residential building at No. 25-29 McKeon Street. Aerial view showing the subject site and surrounding area is provided below.

 

Aerial View of subject site and neighbouring properties

 

3.         Submissions

 

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

 

4.         Key Issues

 

4.1               S.96 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 have been complied with:

 

4.1.1   Substantially the Same Development:

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development and for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The modification consists of deletion of approved windows and relocating its position. No substantial changes are involved into the built form and envelope of approved development, thus the works remain consistent with the original consent. 

 

4.2      S.79C Assessment

The site has been inspected and the application has been assessed having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.

 

4.2.1   Environmental Planning Instruments

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

Zone R3 Medium Density Residential 

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide the housing needs within a medium density residential environment and protect the amenity of residents.

 

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

The applicant has submitted a new BASIX certificate. The plans have been checked with regard to this new certificate and they are consistent with the requirements indicated for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013

Visual Privacy

The objective of Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 states that overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings must be minimised to maintain reasonable levels of privacy. Figure 1 and 2 illustrate the impact of first floor windows of subject property to the adjoining property. Despite that upper level windows were originally approved with a condition that they must be constructed with fixed opaque/translucent, amending the condition to allow the windows to be operable is not anticipated to increase potential overlooking into the adjoining property. The windows are associated with less active spaces such as, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. The amended condition is considered appropriate in satisfying the requirements of the DCP and has included additional new window installed on the south-eastern elevation.

Figure 1: View of existing windows on south-east elevation

 

 

Figure 2: View to the south-eastern side

 

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

 

Modification of approved development includes works already carried out at the rear of subject dwelling, which is considered ancillary in nature to the extent of original approval. Relevant condition of the original consent is to be amended to ensure that additional window on the south-eastern elevation will not result in any adverse impacts on the privacy of adjoining properties. No further amenity impact relating to visual privacy is anticipated from this application.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. 226/2008 for retrospective approval of the deletion of two windows at first floor on south-western side, addition of first floor window (W24) on south-eastern side and amending condition 3 of the consent, at No. 23 McKeon Street, Maroubra, subject to the following:

 

Amend the following conditions to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans No. 1198/08, with sheet numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all dated April 2008, and received by Council on 1 December 2008, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

As amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

2 of 9

Moshonis Bros. Designs

27 June 2013

3 July 2013

 

3 of 9

Moshonis Bros. Designs

27 June 2013

3 July 2013

4 of 9

Moshonis Bros. Designs

27 June 2013

3 July 2013

5 of 9

Moshonis Bros. Designs

27 June 2013

3 July 2013

6 of 9

Moshonis Bros. Designs

27 June 2013

3 July 2013

 

 As amended by the Section 96 “B” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

3 of 9

Moshonis Bros Designs

April 2009

24 June 2014

4 of 9

Moshonis Bros Designs

April 2009

24 June 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A58979_03

16 May 2014

23 May 2014

 

only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application.

 

3.       The windows linked to the dining room and kitchen in the north-west (W15 and W16) and south-east elevation (W20, W21 and W24) shall be designed such that these windows have opaque/translucent glazing to minimise the privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D65/14

 

 

Subject:                  4-8 Storey Street, Maroubra (DA/259/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/259/2014

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Construction of a new hard stand car space for the existing dwelling at 6 Storey Street and further subdivision of the approved Lot 4 (as per DA/553/2011), containing two semi detached dwellings at no. 6 and No. 8 Storey Street into two Torrens Title lots

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Baseline Constructions Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Storey Street Development Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview66362.png

 

 

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

Ù

North

Locality Plan


Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed lot sizes will have a shortfall greater than 10% below the 400m2 minimum lot size standard for R2 zoned allotments of land under Clause 4.1 of the RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted an exception to the standard.

 

Proposal

 

This development application comprises two components:

 

1.     Construction of a new hard stand car space for the existing semi-detached dwelling at 6 Storey Street as required by a condition of consent under DA/553/2011 and

 

2.     Two lot subdivision of Lot 4*, approved as a consolidated lot under DA/553/2011, containing a pair of semi detached dwellings at No. 6 and No. 8 Storey Street as follows:

 

·         Lot 4 (No. 6 Storey Street): 248m2 (6.65m frontage)

·         Lot 5(No. 8 Storey Street): 326m2 (10.4m frontage)

 

 

Lot 4 (No. 6 Storey Street)

Lot 5(No. 8 Storey Street)

Lot size

248m2

326m2

Frontage

6.65m

10.4m

 

Figure 1: Proposed subdivision of lot 4* into lot 4 & 5 containing the pair of semi detached dwellings into two lots.

* See application history

Application history:

 

BA/535/1941: Approval issued for the construction of the pair of semi-detached cottages at No. 6 and No. 8 Storey Street

 

DA/553/2011: Approved the subdivision of three lots (figure 2) located between No. 4 and No. 8 Storey Street into four lots of land (figure 3) as follows:

 

·      Lot 1: a revised allotment that contains an existing dwelling house at No. 4 Storey Street.

 

·      Lots 2 and 3: two new allotments created at the rear of No. 4, 6 & 8 Storey Street, serviced by a 4m wide shared access way allowing for pedestrian, services and vehicular access.

 

·      Lot 4: being a new consolidated allotment containing the existing semi-detached dwellings at No 6 and No 8 Storey Street previously on two individual lots.

 

Figure 2: Three lots prior to approval issued under DA/553/2011

Figure 3: Four lots approved under DA/553/2011

 

Site

The subject land is located on the northern side of Storey Street between Bunnerong Road to the west and Percival Street to the east. The subject site lot 4 contains the following approved portions: 579.9sqm and a site frontage of 17.1m (see figure 1 & 3 above).

Figure 2 : Aerial view of the subject site

The rear outbuildings have been demolished. The locality consists of a range of low density residential development including single detached dwellings, semi detached dwellings and residential flat buildings.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

1.      Minimum allotment size - subdivision

Clause 4.1 (3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 states:

 

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

 

Pursuant to Clauses 4.1(3) of the RLEP, the minimum allotment size for subdivision of land zoned R2 zone is 400sqm per allotment and the proposal contravenes the standard as contained in clause 4.1 (3) of RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Lot 4 – 6 Storey Street

Lot 5 – 8 Storey Street

Proposal

248m

326 m

Variation

152m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 38% shortfall.

74m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 18.5% shortfall.

 

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

 

2.      Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the minimum lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1(3) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Although the proposal does not meet the numerical control of 400sqm minimum lot size in the case of proposed lot 4 & Lot 5, it is consistent with the objectives in that Lots 4 & 5 are representative of the pre-existing condition where the area is occupied by a pair of semi-detached dwellings which are already effectively separate lots with their own service connection and separating fencing. This is in effect, consistent with the objectives listed. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the particular aims of the LEP in terms of efficient use of Land, facilitating sustainable population growth and housing.

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

 

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of the Minimum Subdivision Lot size standard, it is considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, for the following reasons:

 

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

 

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The subdivision pattern of lots within the vicinity of the site is quite unique and fragmented in terms of shape, layout, and lot size.  The previous application largely addressed these issues allowing for a more orderly pattern of subdivision. Although the proposed allotment sizes are below the minimum, there is unlikely to be any adverse impact from the proposal subdivision for the following reasons:

 

·      The semi detached dwellings are consistent with the layout of other semi detached dwellings on similarly sized allotments in the locality

·      The semi detached dwellings comply with the majority of controls under the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (see Compliance report under separate cover) and

·      These two semi-detached dwellings are currently on separate lots of land and were only amalgamated in the recent subdivision approval.

 

Overall, there will not be any adverse impacts as a result of the subdivision.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The development standards for minimum allotment sizes are intended to maintain the existing character of the R2 zone and to ensure acceptable environmental outcomes from housing that are suitably located with access to services, transport, shops and the like, whilst minimising the impact on adjoining neighbours and maintaining or enhancing neighbourhood character.

 

Although the proposed lot sizes of both lots have significant shortfalls to the current standards, it is not uncommon for semis constructed in the 1930s through to the 1960s to be sited on smaller sized lots with narrow frontages and for these to have been subdivided around the late 1950’s and 1960’s. The historical nature of the existing semi detached dwellings on separate lots and the size of other separately titled older semis is characteristic of the pattern of development in the locality.

 

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

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

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

 

The pre-existing irregular subdivision layout of the surrounding lots is longstanding and the use of the rear parts of these lots for light industrial purposes was identified as being incongruous with the desired residential use of No. 6 and No. 8 Storey Street. The approved subdivision provides two additional lots in this area achieving an orderly and economic use of land. More pertinent to this application, as shown in figure 4 below and a walk through the surrounding streets, the general observance of lots sizes well below the 400sqm standard it is evident where they contain older semi-detached dwellings. In effect, the proposed subdivision respects the predominant subdivision pattern in the immediate locality of allotments containing semi detached dwellings in terms of size and configuration.

 

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

 

In terms of future development opportunities, the proposed lot sizes and configuration are consistent with the immediate subdivision pattern. The smaller lots currently accommodate residential development and it is likely that the lot sizes will permit the scale of development commensurate with other similarly sized semi-detached residential dwellings in the locality. It is also considered, that the proposal would not set a precedent for substantial shortfalls regarding the subdivision of more recent dual occupancy developments within land zoned R2 whose intended purpose is to assist with intra family arrangements and to provide for affordable housing options.

 

The exception to the development standard concisely addresses the consistency of the proposed development with the objectives of the standard, the aims of the RLEP and objectives of the Act. On the basis of the applicant’s submission that alludes to the historical context of the site, and Councils consistent decision making where similar circumstances apply, it is considered that applying the minimum allotment size standard to the proposed subdivision is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality and fits in with the subdivision layout and character of similar development, and at the same time will not set a precedent for similar contraventions of the development standard.  The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the minimum lot size standard.

 

The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

 

•    To 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.

 

In respect of the abovementioned objectives, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

·      The proposed subdivision maintains the low density residential nature of the site

 

·      The streetscape amenity is maintained with new work only incorporating a hardstand car space in front of the semi detached dwelling at No. 6 Storey Street

 

·      The amenity of residents will not be affected by the subdivision

 

·      The proposed development is consistent with the existing pattern of development in the locality.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it represents the most an orderly use of the site, it does not contravene the purpose of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential zone.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for minimum allotment size  in clause 4.1 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the minimum lot size standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit 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.

 

3.      Car parking and access:

 

The originally proposed hardstand car space was configured in a horizontal direction across the front of the semi-detached dwelling at No. 6 Storey Street. Councils concerns with this unconventional configuration are that a car parked across the front of the semi will obscure the dwelling and adversely impact the dwellings appearance from street level. Further, it creates the potential for cumulative development expectations along Storey Street and the wider LGA potentially transforming the streetscape character of low density residential zones.

 

The applicant was given the opportunity to provide alternative parking arrangements and as a result submitted sketches showing two options: one being a car space at the rear of No. 6 Storey Street that was not supportable due to restrictions on car maneuverability and two a vertically configured car space at the front at a right angle to the street alignment. The latter configuration is supportable however it is noted and also maintained by the applicant that on individual cross over reduces the curb side length from the cross over in front of no 8 Storey Street thereby reducing curb side parking. However, minor modifications can be incorporated into the design in order to provide curb side parking for two vehicles. These modifications include replacing the single individual crossover with a 2m crossover extension to the approved driveways that provide access to the rear lots created under DA/553/2011. The reliance for partial access over the approved driveway retains an 11m curbside providing parking for two small vehicles.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed subdivision meets the assessment criteria and the objectives and performance requirements of the RDCP 2013 and the RLEP 2012. Despite the contravention of the minimum allotment size standard, it will not result in an undesirable precedent given that the pair of semi detached dwellings mirrors the historical development of other similarly aged semi-detached dwellings within the locality which exist on separate Torrens titled lots; Moreover, the resultant lots will not result in any appreciable adverse impact on the visual aesthetics of the buildings, streetscape or the amenity of the locality. The proposal is, therefore, considered to represent a good planning outcome and is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.1 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to minimum allotment sizes, 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 & Environment 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/259/2014 for subdivision of lot 4 into 2 lots and a hardstand car space, at No. 6-8 Storey Street Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Sheet 1 of 1

Anthony Guy Mitchell

undated

5 May 2014

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

Car space Design

a.     Plans shall be submitted to Council for approval demonstrating compliance with the following requirements in regards to the proposed  hardstand car space;

·      The car space shall be of minimum length 5.4m and must not encroach onto the adjacent Right of Access at any point.

·      The grade of the car space shall not exceed 1 in 20 (5%).

·      The car space shall be clearly delineated from the adjacent Right of Access. 

·      The car space shall be provided at a right angle to the street alignment of appropriate orientation and position to allow vehicles to satisfactorily enter the car space from Storey St using a combined widened crossing (associated with the adjacent Right of Access) of maximum width 6m wide.

·      Landscaping details east of the hard stand car space

Note: This condition allows for a 2m extension east of the approved shared driveway with access to the parking space relying on the partial use of the approved shared driveway under DA/553/2011. The car space width shall not exceed a width of 3m in width.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                   8 July 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D66/14

 

 

Subject:                  Design Excellence Panel

Folder No:                   F2004/06764

Author:                   David Ongkili, Coordinator Strategic Planning      

 

Introduction

 

The Randwick City Council Operational Plan 2013-1014 specifically requires the following operational plan action under Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development;

 

Review the operation of the Waverley/Randwick Design Review Panel in response to any recommendation by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure review of SEPP 65.

 

This report presents a review of the Waverley/Randwick Design Review Panel (DRP) and recommends the establishment of a Waverley/Randwick Design Excellence Panel to not only continue and enhance the significant work of the existing DRP in promoting high quality urban design but to also broaden the categories of development that can be referred to the Panel. It should be emphasised that the proposed Design Excellence Panel (DEP) is not an Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP). The proposed DEP will only provide design advice that inputs into the development assessment process. Applications will not be determined by the proposed DEP.

 

Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development seeks to improve the design quality of residential flat development in NSW. SEPP 65 provides for the establishment of a Design Review Panel (DRP) to help councils meet the objectives of the SEPP.

The Randwick and Waverley Design Review Panel was formed in 2003, shortly after the gazettal of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 65. In its approximately 10 year existence, the Design Review Panel has provided invaluable advice and guidance in the design of developments. Specifically, the DRP, in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 65:

1.  Seeks to improve the design quality of residential flat development in NSW.

2.  Carries out a review of proposals against the 10 design principles within SEPP 65.

3.  Encourages applicants/proponent to submit concept proposals for early comment.

4.  Provides written recommendations addressing the 10 design principles to Council and the applicant.

5.  Advises whether the proposal is acceptable or requires redesign and to be resubmitted to the panel for further consideration.

Between 2011 and 2013, an average of 40 applications (comprising DAs, Prelodgement DAs and Section 96 applications) per year was referred to the DRP. Of the applications that were referred to the Panel in this period, about 35% of applications annually were required to be resubmitted to the Panel for amendments prior to final comments being made. The overall statistics indicate the extensive and significant role the current Design Review Panel has in promoting excellence in urban design in Randwick City. In particular, the Panel’s role and advice has greatly complemented Council’s Design Award program as reflected in the quality development outcomes in Randwick City. This contribution can be built upon and improved to further enhance architectural and urban design in Randwick City. In the eleven years since SEPP 65 and its associated design review panel process was implemented, some of these improvements have occurred in spite of the process, but most are because of it. In particular, the role of the Panel is expected to become more important in the future having regards to the following factors: 

 

·      The provisions of SEPP 65 only apply to residential flat buildings that are:

a)     3 or more storeys (not including levels below ground level, provided for car parking or storage, or both, that protrude less than 1.2 metres above ground level) and

b)     4 or more self contained dwelling units (whether or not the building includes uses for other purposes, such as shops),

Accordingly, only residential flat buildings with these characteristics are required to be referred to the DRP. However, there are developments of significant size and scale that are regularly lodged with Council that are not covered under these specific referral/assessment criteria under SEPP 65 but nevertheless require a significant degree of design critique and control.

 

·      There is a need for SEPP 65 to be transformed from being just an instrument to improve the design of residential flat buildings to being a framework for design excellence in all major development. In 2012, the Department of Planning undertook a review of SEPP 65 including a review of the Residential Design Codes and the operation and membership of the Design Review Panels. Council made a submission to the review recommending that the provisions of SEPP 65 go beyond the existing referral/assessment criteria. To date there has been no response to Council’s recommendation nor has there been any formal advice regarding the outcome of the Department’s review especially in terms of structural changes to the panel.

 

·      Council has adopted a new LEP that now developments to achieve high standards of architectural design including in respect of all buildings on sites greater than 10,000 sqm; on land subject of a development control plan; and buildings greater than 15m in height. Under Clause 6.11 - Design excellence, the objective of the clause is to deliver the highest standard of architectural and urban design.

 

Accordingly, in view of the above factors, a review of the operation of the Waverley/Randwick Design Review Panel is both necessary and timely. To address the above issues, and following consultation with relevant officers in Waverley Council, it is recommended that a Waverley/Randwick Design Excellence Panel (DEP) be established to replace the existing DRP with the following recommended features:

 

Mandate

Referrals to the DEP will be required for the following types of development:

 

·      All residential flat buildings that are currently covered under SEPP 65 or in the opinion of Council that are likely to have, and require assessment in terms of, the design excellence objectives under Clause of the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

·      All major residential, commercial, mixed use and institutional development categories, including but not limited to:

 

Seniors housing

Infill affordable housing

Student housing

University / educational buildings

 

Membership

The creation of a DEP provides an opportunity for the membership and skills base of the panel to be renewed and rejuvenated. Typically, the skills base for the panel members comprises:

 

·      Architecture

·      Planning

·      Urban Design

·      Heritage

·      Local and regional issues appreciation

·      Landscape architecture

 

More detailed guidelines including standard operating procedures, rotation of members, time limits on appointments, reporting on conflict of interests and conduct of meetings will be required to be developed for the DEP.

 

It is considered that the selection of members is best to be reviewed through a public tendering or expression of interest process and potentially operate on a regional basis in collaboration with Waverley Council.

 

This would allow Council to have a pool of experts available for selection by Council for the purposes of design review which, in turn, may have benefits in cost reduction and wider range of expertise.

 

Meetings

Panel meetings will take place as required on the first and fourth Monday of each month alternating monthly between Randwick and Waverley Council. Applicants should not contact the panel members directly at any time.

 

Fees

Council currently charges a minimum fee of $760.00 per item that goes to the DRP which is paid in advance prior to the meeting. It is proposed to maintain this fee which will be incorporated into Council’s Fess and Charges structure.

 

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.

Outcome 6:     A liveable city.

Direction 6a:     Enhance housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community.

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

In the 2013 financial year, Randwick Council alone (excluding Waverley Council) expended approximately $88,000 towards operation of the current DRP. In return, Council has received a total of $53,000 from applications that are subject to SEPP 65.

It is anticipated that the cost to Council will be similar that incurred under the current system.

 

Conclusion

 

The review of the DRP has indicated a range of factors that would justify the replacement of the DRP with a new review body to be called the Design Excellence Panel to be shared with Waverley Council. The establishment of a DEP would not only maintain the high design standards of development outcomes generated by the current DRP process but also allow these design outcomes to be applied to a broader category of development across Randwick City.

 

The new Panel will provide independent professional advice on development applications, masterplans and new plans / policies, relating to all residential flat buildings as specified within SEPP No. 65 as well as additional residential categories such as boarding houses, service apartments and student housing. Additionally, the Panel will provide advice on other development categories for major residential, commercial, mixed use and institutional developments.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council endorse the:

 

a)     establishment of a Design Excellence Panel in conjunction with Waverley Council to replace the existing SEPP 65 Design Review Panel with the features outlined in this report.

 

b)     establishment of a public tendering / expression of interest process for the selection of members to the proposed Design Excellence Panel

 

c)     continuation of the current Design Review Panel until such time as the Design Excellence Panel is established.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil