Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 14 October 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                                                                                            14 October 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, 14 October 2014 at 6:00pm.

 

 

Committee Members:          The Mayor T Seng, Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, D’Souza, Garcia (Chairperson), Matson, Moore, Nash (Deputy Chairperson), Neilson, Roberts, 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 - 9 September 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.

D84/14      24 Haig Street, Maroubra (DA/342/2014) (Deferred)................................ 1

D85/14      15 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee (DA/191/2014)..................................... 11

D86/14      52-52A Jennings Street, Matraville (DA/454/2011/A)................................ 33

D87/14      23 Araluen Street, Kingsford (DA/395/2014)........................................... 41

D88/14      9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/303/2013/A).................................. 51

D89/14      205 Oberon Street, Coogee(DA/500/2010/C).......................................... 63

D90/14      97 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/234/2014)........................................... 71

D91/14      30 Blenheim Street, Randwick (DA167/2014).......................................... 83

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Sima Truuvert

ACTING General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                            14 October 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D84/14

 

 

Subject:                  24 Haig Street, Maroubra (DA/342/2014) (Deferred)

Folder No:                   DA/342/2014

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

The proposal is for Construction of a secondary dwelling above existing garage, new garage door and internal changes to garage.

 

The application was recommended for refusal and reported to the Planning Committee on 9 September 2014 at the request of Councillors Andrews, D’Souza, Nash, Seng, Stavrinos and Stevenson. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

“(Andrews/Stavrinos) that the application be deferred in accordance with the applicant’s request.”

 

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.

 

Recommendation

 

        That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 342/2014 for the construction of a secondary dwelling above the existing garage, new garage door at No. 24 Haig Street, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

1.    The proposal does not satisfy Clause 22(3)(b) within the State Environmental Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009 in that the proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor area for secondary dwellings.

 

2.    The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives of R2 - Low Density Residential zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The secondary dwelling is considered to be visually intrusive and is not in keeping with the predominate character of the laneway. 

 

3.    The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and does not include a Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards to address the departure from the maximum permissible floor area for secondary dwellings of Clause 22(3)(b) within the SEPP ARH 2009. 

 

4.    The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls for laneway development as detailed in C1: Low Density Residential, Clause 8.1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan in that the design of the upper-floor level will result in a development that is excessive in visual bulk and scale and will compromise the visual amenity from the laneway and the neighbouring premises.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Executive Summary Report - 24 Haig Street, Maroubra

 

2.

DA Compliance Report - 24 Haig Street , Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Executive Summary Report - 24 Haig Street, Maroubra

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Development Application Report No. D80/14

 

 

Subject:                  24 Haig Street, Maroubra - DA/342/2014

Folder No:                   DA/342/2014

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer      

 


Proposal:                    Construction of a secondary dwelling above existing garage, new garage door and internal changes to garage

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr. N Besser

Owner:                        Ms. A Bard

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview61330.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Andrews, D’Souza, Nash, Seng, Stavrinos and Stevenson.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the following works:

·        Construction of a secondary dwelling on top of the existing garage structure with 2 x bedrooms, living room, shower, dining and kitchen

·        Alterations to the garage door openings at ground floor level

·        Internal alterations to garage to accommodate the stairs for access to upper floor level.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Haig Street and is currently occupied by a single storey detached dwelling house. The site has a width of 10.10 metres fronting Maroubra Lane, a site boundary depth of 54.14 metres along the western boundary and 51.93 metres along the eastern boundary. The subject site has an overall site area of 538.8 m²

 

Neighbouring the property to the north is Maroubra Lane and to the east and west are existing two storey detached dwelling houses. The immediate locality is a mixture of low and medium density residential dwellings including detached dwelling houses and multi dwelling housing.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards

The proposed development contravenes the maximum permissible floor space for secondary dwellings contained within the Clause 22(3)(b) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) for Affordable Rental Housing (ARH) 2009. The applicant has not submitted a written request to justify the contravention of the standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

Secondary Dwellings

Clause 22(3)(b) of the SEPP ARH 2009 permits development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling with a maximum permissible floor area of 60. The secondary dwelling has a floor area of 138 and exceeds the floor area by 78m². This represents a variation to the development standard by 230%. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Gross Floor Area (GFA)

Proposed development

138m2

Permissible FSR / GFA

60m2

GFA in excess of SEEP standard

78m2

Variation from the permissible GFA for secondary dwellings

230%

 

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?

The SEPP ARH 2009 does not include any relevant objectives for Clause 22(3)(B) and simply advises that the floor area must not exceed 60 square metres or 10% of the total floor area of the principle dwelling. Subsequently, the aims of the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 are assessed accordingly:

 

(a)   To provide a consistent planning regime for the provision of affordable rental housing,

(b)   To facilitate the effective delivery of new affordable rental housing by providing incentives by way of expanded zoning permissibility, floor space ratio bonuses and non-discretionary development standards,

(c)   To facilitate the retention and mitigate the loss of existing affordable rental housing,

(d)   To employ a balanced approach between obligations for retaining and mitigating the loss of existing affordable rental housing, and incentives for the development of new affordable rental housing,

(e)   To facilitate an expanded role for not-for-profit-providers of affordable rental housing,

(f)    To support local business centres by providing affordable rental housing for workers close to places of work,

(g)   To facilitate the development of housing for the homeless and other disadvantaged people who may require support services, including group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

Whilst there are no specified objectives for Clause 22(3), a secondary dwelling as defined under the SEPP provides that these types of developments are largely aimed at providing accommodation of inter-family arrangements or local workers on low to moderate incomes. Secondary dwelling must remain subservient to the primary dwelling; secondary dwellings are likely to be able to be accommodated on a site with a minimum 450sqm site area; that parking need not be provided for the secondary dwelling and the Consent Authority to undertake an environmental assessment having regard to the suitability of the site to occupy a Primary and Secondary dwelling within relevant building design guidelines and the specific local conditions. In this respect see assessment under the Section: Comprehensive Development Control Plans. A merits based assessment has also been carried out in assessing the reasonableness of the proposal.

 

The applicant has not submitted a Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards as part of the development application. Rather the applicant has issued a statement from a legal representative and specified:

 

 

The advice concludes that given there is no express definition of the term ‘total floor area of the secondary dwelling’ within the SEPP ARH 2009 and the RLEP 2012 and therefore a maximum floor area for a secondary dwelling does not apply.

 

In assessing the proposed development and the applicant’s statement, it is considered that the secondary dwelling does not achieve a high level of consistency with the aims of the standards and would not lead to a positive planning and design outcome for the following reasons:

 

·      Council is maintaining a consistent planning position in the assessment of secondary dwellings and the definition of ‘floor area’ as detailed within Schedule 1, Clause 4(3) of the SEPP ARH 2009.

 

·      The proposed secondary dwelling represents a significant departure from the maximum permissible floor area of 60m² as per Clause 22(3)(B) of the SEPP ARH 2009. In addition to this, the development application does not include a Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards or provide adequate justification to the non-compliance.  

 

·      The proposed development is excessive in size and scale which is contributed largely due to the mansard roof design. The ‘roof’ contains similar characteristics of an external wall given its steeply pitched roof form. The ridge of the roof is perpendicular to the laneway and contributes to the visual bulk and scale of the development.

 

·      It is considered that the excessive size of the secondary dwelling will compete in size with the primary dwelling. As such, rather than remaining ancillary and subservient as is the intent of the SEPP ARH 2009.

 

·      The proposal is considered inappropriate and will contribute to an undesirable planning precedent to laneway developments.

 

Comments:

The variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical maximum floor area standards for secondary dwellings will be of greater contribution to the public benefit in this instance. 

 

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

The proposal has not been carefully designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and does is not in keeping with the scale and character of the development within the existing streetscape.  

 

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with the maximum floor area standards for secondary dwellings as prescribed within the SEPP ARH 2009. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

·      To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet 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 locality.

·      To protect the amenity of the residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

In accordance with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, secondary dwellings are not a permissible use within R2: Low Density Residential zoning. However, it is a permissible use as per the State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing 2009.

Nevertheless, the proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the zone and contributes to a development that is excessive in bulk and scale and is not sympathetic to the immediate residential locality. The development will compromise the appearance of the dwelling within the streetscape and does not contribute positively to the desired future character of the locality. Subsequently, the application has been recommended for refusal. 

 

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

 

(a)    The public benefit of maintaining the development standard.

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for maximum permissible floor area for secondary dwellings in accordance with the SEPP for ARH 2009.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical maximum floor area for secondary dwellings standard will 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 raises matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard is necessary, in this case, for maintaining the low density housing forms where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the character of existing laneway development.

 

The proposed development does not satisfy the provisions of Clauses 4.6(3) and (4) of the RLEP 2012. Therefore, the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the FSR standard is not considered to be well founded and is refused.

 

·      Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Clause 8.1: Development in Laneways

The Comprehensive Development Control Plan specifies that all ancillary buildings fronting laneways must have a maximum wall height of 4.5 metres and building height of 6 metres. The proposed secondary dwelling above the existing garage does not comply with Council’s controls as the external wall height of the development is 5.6 metres in height and is a substantial departure from Council’s controls. The mansard roof design contains similar characteristics as an external wall as it contains the secondary dwelling within its roof space. The nature of the roof is steeply sloping in form, measures perpendicular along Maroubra Lane and the protruding roof form is considered to be substantially more bulky than a more conventional gable roof design. Furthermore, comparisons to the approved two storey structure at no. 20 Haig Street are unjustified given the structure adopts a gable roof design which is  more sympathetic and less bulky then the proposed mansard design. In considering the merits of the proposal, the development is not in keeping with the objectives of the DCP as the proposal results in an excessive visual bulk and scale and will not remain secondary to the dwelling on the site. The proposal will adversely impact the visual amenity of the development as viewed from the laneway and the neighbouring premises and is recommended for refusal.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject application has been recommended for refusal given the proposed development does not comply with the relevant controls of the Comprehensive Development Control Plan in that the design of the mansard roof form contributes to a perceivable increase to the external wall height and an unreasonable level of visual bulk and scale as viewed from the laneway. In addition to this, the proposed development substantially exceeds the development standards within the SEPP ARH 2009 at 138sqm well above the maximum floor area of 60sqm.  The applicant has not submitted any justification to the contravention of the standards pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 and the statement provided is not consistent with Council practices and procedures in calculating floor area for secondary dwellings.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

 


 

Recommendation

 

        That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 342/2014 for the construction of a secondary dwelling above the existing garage, new garage door at No. 24 Haig Street, Maroubra, for the following reasons:

 

1.           The proposal does not satisfy Clause 22(3)(b) within the State Environmental Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009 in that the proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor area for secondary dwellings.

 

2.           The proposed development does not comply with the relevant objectives of R2 - Low Density Residential zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The secondary dwelling is considered to be visually intrusive and is not in keeping with the predominate character of the laneway. 

 

3.           The documentation submitted with the application is deficient of information and does not include a Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards to address the departure from the maximum permissible floor area for secondary dwellings of Clause 22(3)(b) within the SEPP ARH 2009. 

 

4.           The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls for laneway development as detailed in C1: Low Density Residential, Clause 8.1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan in that the design of the upper-floor level will result in a development that is excessive in visual bulk and scale and will compromise the visual amenity from the laneway and the neighbouring premises.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 24 Haig Street , Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            14 October 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D85/14

 

 

Subject:                  15 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee (DA/191/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/191/2014

Author:                   Scott Williamson, Senior Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Substantial alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, additions at ground floor, double garage at lower ground level, swimming pool to rear and associated works.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr R D Pajor & Mrs R Pajor

Owner:                        Mrs R Pajor

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

 

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 Roberts, Matson, Neilson, Bowen and Shurey.

 

 

1.    Proposal

 

The application, as amended on 27 June 2014, seeks consent for substantial alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, swimming pool to rear and associated works at 15 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee.

 

Lower ground floor works

The scheme makes use of the existing lower ground floor areas, adding a double garage to the Edgecliffe Ave frontage. Storage and workshop spaces are provided within the existing envelope.

 

Ground floor level

At the existing ground floor level, the scheme proposes extension to the front and rear of the existing building. Internal spaces inclusive of living, dining and kitchen areas, two (2) bedrooms, study and bathroom spaces are provided. Terraces are proposed at the front and rear, overlooking Edgecliffe Ave and overlooking the rear open space, respectively.

 

First floor level

The application is inclusive of a first floor addition, comprising bedroom, sitting room, bathroom and wardrobe areas. A void is included on the western side of the addition.  Small balconies are proposed at the front of the building overlooking Edgecliffe Ave and the rear overlooking the rear open space.

 

External works

An in-ground pool is proposed at the rear, along with various landscaping and retaining works across the site.

 

 

 

 



Figure 1: The existing dwelling, as viewed from Edgecliffe Ave.

Figure 2: The rear of the existing building, viewed from the rear open space.

 

 

Figure 3: Streetscape view of the site, left of frame, with the western neighbour at 11 Edgecliffe Ave visible to the right of frame.

 

Site inspections were carried out in May and June of 2014.

 

2.        Site context

 

The site is described as Lot 2, in DP 510771, known as 15 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee. The subject site and those adjoining are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.

 

The site is located on the southern side of Edgecliffe Ave. The site has a single, 13.5 metre frontage to Edgecliffe Ave. The parcel is of regular shape and oriented roughly north- south. The site has a cross- fall from east to west of one (1) metre to 1.5 metres.

 

The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, Edgecliffe Ave boundary

13.55m

581.7m2

Western, side boundary

44.566m

Eastern, side boundary

43.065m

Southern, rear boundary

13.416m

 

A part one (1), part two (2) storey dwelling is currently contained within the site. Surrounding development is residential, comprising a mix of aging and larger contemporary dwellings. 

 

The site and those surrounding do not have any individual heritage significance within the provisions of RLEP 2012.

 

3.    History

 

3.1    Application history DA/191/2014

 

·      27 June 2014; in response to a request of Council, the applicant amended the scheme inclusive of:

 

Reduction in length and redistribution of bulk of the proposed first floor addition;

Reduction in western first floor side setbacks from 3.8 metres to 1.9 metres, maintaining compliance with the DCP control;

Redistribution of bulk proposed to the front, ground floor addition;

Redesign of windows on north, south and west elevations;

Clarification of floor space calculations;

Increase western side setback for proposed swimming pool and provide screen planting along the southern and western boundaries.

 

The amendments of 27 June 2014 reduced side setbacks from that originally notified and as such were required to be re-notified in accordance with the DCP, as discussed in the following section of this report.

 

·      29 July 2014; amended shadow diagrams received from the applicant.

 

The amended shadow diagrams were submitted in support of the amended plans received on 27 June 2014. The diagrams were provided to the western neighbour at their request. The diagrams were not required to be formally re-notified.

 

4.    Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the original application between 11 April and 1 May 2014 in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, submissions from the following properties were received:

 

·      17 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee;

·      11 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee;

·      Scotton + Yee, on behalf of 11 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee;

·      16 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee.

 

Issue

Comment

Built form:

·    Concern over bulk presented to the street and adjoining sites;

 

·    The proposed floor space, length, wall height, overall height are excessive and non-compliant;

 

·    The massing and scale of the development is insensitive, excessive and results in significant impacts;

 

·    Setbacks are inadequate;

 

·    The bulk of the proposal contravenes the objectives of the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

 

The built form and potential view loss implications of the proposal are discussed in further detail below.

 

The proposal was amended on 27 June 2014 to respond to initial concerns raised by Council and neighbouring sites. 

 

The proposal complies with site coverage, floor space, setback, height and wall height controls applicable to the site and is commensurate in form and height to numerous contemporary examples in the street.

 

The distribution of bulk around the site is consistent with what would be expected in the context of similar developments and that anticipated by the planning controls.

The design of the proposal is considered to provide reasonable response to site constraints, including view loss and the foreshore scenic protection area and is supported on merit.

 

 

View sharing:

·    Concern over loss of significant ocean views to 11 Edgecliffe Ave at ground and first floor levels.

 

 

See view sharing figures and detailed discussion below.

The amended plans reduced the length of the upper floor, improving the extent of views retained to the front and rear of the proposal from 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to view sharing and the planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140, as assessed in the relevant sections of this report.

Solar access:

·    Concern over solar access implications to 17 Edgecliffe Ave;

 

·    Concerns over loss of light and solar access to 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

 

Solar access is discussed further in the sections below.

 

Given the north- south orientation of these sites, the proposal will not prevent either of the adjoining sites from achieving the required three (3) hours solar access to primary north facing windows, living areas and principle open spaces on 21 June. Compliance with the building envelope controls further indicates that any increase in shadow impact is reasonable and is to be anticipated with any development of these sites.

Privacy:

·    Concern over visual privacy issues to east and west adjoining sites;

 

·    Concern over acoustic privacy issues to adjoining sites.

 

 

Suitable privacy measures have been proposed in the interest of the western neighbour. Some minor amendments have been recommended to improve privacy to the eastern neighbour.

 

Noise sources including pool, living areas, plant and equipment are typical of a low- density residential environment. Suitable conditions have been recommended to regulate the output of plant and equipment.  

Other:

·    Concern over property value;

 

·    The proposed swimming pool will conflict with an existing sewer line and a boundary wall;

 

·    Request the treatment of asbestos be regulated through conditions.

 

 

Property value is not a matter that can be considered within the scope of a planning assessment, pursuant to Section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979.

 

The amended plans of 27 June 2014 shifted the pool toward the centre of the site. Regardless, conditions have been recommended that will require Sydney Water be consulted to ascertain conflict with any of their assets.

 

Asbestos management conditions have been recommended.

 

The amended proposal was re-notified between 4 July and 18 July 2014. One (1) submission of support was received from the following address:

 

·      3 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee.

 

Submissions from the following properties were received, raising objections to the amended proposal:

 

·      11 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee;

·      20 Liguria Street, South Coogee;

·      18 Liguria Street, South Coogee;

·      17 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee;

·      Scotton + Yee, on behalf of 11 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee.

 

Issue

Comment

Built form:

·    The amended plans increase the bulk and scale impact to 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

The built form and potential view loss implications of the proposal are discussed in further detail below.

 

The proposal was amended on 27 June 2014 to respond to initial concerns raised by Council and neighbouring sites.

 

The proposal as amended shifts building bulk closer to the western boundary, in the interest of reducing length. The proposed setbacks remain compliant, as does site coverage, height and wall height controls applicable to the site. The scheme remains commensurate in form and height to numerous built form examples in the street.

View sharing:

·    Height poles must be erected;

 

·    The amended built form increases the major view loss impact to 11 Edgecliffe Ave;

 

·    Submission provides a view loss assessment against the principle of Tenacity, indicating significant and unreasonable view sharing response to 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

Sufficient detail has been provided within the application and can be reliably extrapolated to site photos to ascertain view loss impacts. As such, height poles were not necessary to conduct a view sharing assessment. See view sharing figures and detailed discussion below.

 

The amended plans reduced the length of the upper floor, improving the extent of views able to be retained to the front and rear of the proposal from 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

The proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to view sharing and the planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

Solar access:

·    Concern to 17 Edgecliffe Ave remains over light and solar access;

 

·    The amended plans increase the solar access and light impacts to 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

Solar access to adjoining properties is discussed further in the sections below and will be reasonable and acceptable in that:

 

·      The north- south orientation of these sites allows the proposal will not prevent either of the adjoining sites from achieving the required three (3) hours solar access to primary north facing windows, living areas and principle open spaces on 21 June.

 

·      Compliance with the building envelope controls further indicates that any increase in shadow impact is reasonable and is to be anticipated with any development of these sites.

 

·      Some minor improvement to the daylight situation at 17 Edgecliffe Ave has been recommended through a reduction in balcony length, given this building is a single storey semi with limited aspect.

Privacy:

·    Concern over visual privacy issues to south, east and west adjoining sites;

 

·    Request planting in planter boxes along eastern boundary be maintained to one (1) metre;

 

 

 

 

 

 

·    Request deletion of balcony to upper floor bedroom one (1) in consideration of privacy.

 

 

Suitable privacy measures have been included in the amended proposal in the interest of the western neighbour. Some minor additional amendments have been recommended to improve privacy to the eastern neighbour, including requirement to maintain suitable screen planting in planter boxes.

 

In respect of the southern neighbours, the dwelling is provided substantial rear setback, typical of development in the vicinity.

 

The balcony associated with bedroom one (1) is of minimal width and, being associated with a bedroom, is not considered indicative of an intensive use that would be conducive to overlooking. Substantial separation distance of up to 17 metres is provided to neighbours to the rear of the site. This separation is more than sufficient to allow the proposed balcony. Screen planting is provided in the rear setback that will reach three (3) metres at maturity and assist in screening the rear neighbour.

Other:

·    No RL’s are provided to the western boundary eave and roof;

 

·    Submission provides a Real Estate agents’ opinion that view loss will have significant property value implication for 11 Edgecliffe Ave;

 

·    Submission provides a number of redesign suggestions to benefit 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

Sufficient information is provided in elevation and section to allow the RL of the western eave to be determined.

Property value is not a matter that can be considered within the scope of a planning assessment.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant provisions of Council’s planning controls and presents a reasonable scheme in the context of surrounding development. The design is considered to have minimised impacts where possible. Accordingly, imposing further redesign requirement is unreasonable. 

 

5.    Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance:

 

5.1    Building Height - Section 3.2

The DCP identifies seven (7) metres in wall height may be achieved to buildings on relatively flat sites. The subject site has only marginal fall across the site and as such has been assessed in line with this control.

 

Measurement of external wall height

Within the amendments of 27 June 2014, the applicant has indicated that the proposal achieves a wall height of seven (7) metres, being compliant with the control when measured in accordance with the DCP. The following analysis was presented in support of this:

 

Figure 4: Council’s DCP wall height diagram on the left, with the applicant’s proposed wall height on the right.

 

The DCP notes the following in section 3.2, as illustrated in the figure above:

 

“For skillion roofs, the highest point of the external wall is measured to the underside of the eave of the lower end of the roof”.

 

The applicant’s proposed wall height is supported. The DCP anticipates situations of skillion roofs such as that proposed occurring and is clear on how to measure wall height in the circumstance. Given this, the proposal is compliant with the seven (7) metre wall height control.

 

 

Wall height and upper floor length

The amended proposal of 27 June 2014 reduced the length of the upper floor addition to the building from an initial 21 metres to 16.6 metres, measured from front to rear. Comparatively, the upper floor of the western neighbour at 11 Edgecliffe Ave is longer, being approximately 19 metres from front to rear. In fact, where the proposed building is closest to No 11 Edgecliffe Avenue, the proposed length of the upper floor is actually reduced to 15 metres, to the further benefit of this western neighbour.

 

The proposed wall height, when combined with the length of the upper floor addition, primarily, has been a designed to address view sharing issues for the adjoining western property at No 11 Edgecliffe Avenue which has been a focal point of this assessment. The scheme represents a relatively skilful distribution of bulk and scale in minimising the impacts of wall height combined with a significantly reduced upper floor length.

 

The scale of the building is consistent with the established built form of the locality and importantly, achieves compliance with the wall height control. The building has been appropriately articulated and uses a variety of materials. The proposed wall height is not expected to have any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts of bulk and scale, shadow, view loss or privacy.

 

Possibility of reducing compliant wall height

Given compliant wall height and setbacks, there are not sufficient grounds to require the applicant to compress the height of the proposal any further. In this regard, given the level of compliance the proposal achieves with the relevant planning controls, the following clause of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is noted:

 

(3A) Development control plans

If a development control plan contains provisions that relate to the development that is the subject of a development application, the consent authority:

 

(a)  if those provisions set standards with respect to an aspect of the development and the development application complies with those standards—is not to require more onerous standards with respect to that aspect of the development”

 

The proposal complies with the relevant provisions of the applicable development control plan, as discussed above and detailed further in the attached compliance report. To require more onerous standards in respect of this application is considered unreasonable and unnecessary.

 

The proposed wall height complies with the objectives and controls of Section 3.2 of the DCP and is supported by this assessment.

 

5.2    Setbacks - Section 3.3

 

Single dwelling

 

DCP control

Proposed

Compliance?

Front setback

6m or average of adjoining development

 

Min 3.25m to garage;

8.9m to main building bulk above.

 

Consistent with examples of adjoining development.

Side setbacks – ground floor

 

1.2m

Min. 1.2m

Yes.

Side setbacks - first floor

 

1.2m – 1.8m

Min. 1.9m

Yes.

Rear setback

 

8m

 

 

Min. 11m to rear terrace; 14m to building bulk.

Yes.

 

5.2.1   Front setbacks – Section 3.3.1

The DCP requires front setbacks consistent with the setbacks of adjoining dwellings or six (6) metres. The proposal is inclusive of a front setback of minimum 3.25 metres to the proposed garage and 8.8 metres to the bulk of the dwelling above.

 

The proposed garage setback is consistent with the stepping back of development occurring in an easterly direction on Edgecliffe Ave. A number of developments in the streetscape locate garages close to the street, notably number 11 and 17 Edgecliffe Ave, indicating the proposed garage will not introduce a new or unsympathetic setback to the streetscape.    

 

Above the garage, a generous setback is proposed to the bulk of the building, providing greater than the necessary six (6) metres and greater than the front setback of the existing dwelling at 11 Edgecliffe Ave. The proposed front setback contributes to a consistent rhythm of setbacks in built form on the southern side of Edgecliffe Ave and in the context of large contemporary development in the vicinity, will not eventuate in an uncharacteristic effect of dominance on either the streetscape or adjoining sites.

 

The proposed front setback enables a view sharing outcome to the western neighbour that is consistent with that expected with the specific built form, topographic and orientation attributes of these sites. The setback allows the western neighbour to retain a component of existing horizon views through the front setback of 15 Edgecliffe Ave from a first floor sitting room.

 

The proposed front setback complies with the objectives and controls of Section 3.3.1 of the DCP and is supported by this assessment.

 

5.2.2   Rear setbacks – Section 3.3.3

The DCP requires that eight (8) metres in rear setback be provided given the depth of the allotment. The proposed dwelling is setback a minimum of 11 metres to a proposed balcony and 14 metres to the rear-most building bulk.

 

The proposed rear setback readily complies with the DCP and has the following significant benefits:

 

·         the setback reflects the predominant rear alignment of adjoining development, notably that established at 11 Edgecliffe Ave at first floor level;

·         the setback allows a typical and adequate separation to sites adjoining to the rear, for the purpose of visual and acoustic privacy and solar access;

·         the setback allows for a substantial area of practical private open space at the rear for recreation and landscaping;

·         the setback enables a view sharing outcome to the western neighbour that is consistent with that expected with the specific built form, topographic and orientation attributes of these sites.

 

The proposed rear setback is compliant with the provisions of the DCP and is supported.

 

5.3      View sharing – Section 4.6

Concern was raised during notification with regard to view sharing, originating from the site adjoining to the west at 11 Edgecliffe Avenue. The property was inspected by the assessing officer, taking various photographs of the existing views at standing level from living areas, bedrooms and balconies. 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: The subject site (highlighted), with context of view obtained to objecting site in relation to the coastline.

Figure 6: The view issue in the context of surrounding built form.

 

 

Figure 7: The proposed streetscape and west elevations, with existing dwelling highlighted.

 

As illustrated in Figure 7 above, the proposed building involves a 26cm increase in maximum height from the existing dwelling. The proposed first floor addition elongates the existing impact to a greater length of the property, thus obstructing a greater extent of the view presently obtained by the western neighbour at 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

An assessment of the view impact of the proposal is conducted using the planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This assessment is detailed as follows:

 

·      Principle 1: The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. 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.

The building at 11 Edgecliffe Ave is a two (2) storey dwelling, with north- south orientation and shared eastern side boundary with the subject site.

 

Ground floor glimpses of the horizon are available from living areas, through corridors of vegetation and development. These glimpses are very restricted in the present and are obtained over a side boundary. The views are considered negligible in respect of the principle and are unrealistic in retaining in this context. The ground floor views are not discussed further in this respect. 

 

The predominant views obtained to this property are obtained at first floor level, from a sitting area, bedrooms and associated balconies.

 

In this instance, views are achieved from east-facing windows and balconies, to the north-east through south-east, above 15 Edgecliffe Ave. The views are obtained through various corridors, generally hemmed by existing development and vegetation, as shown in the figures below. Views comprise ocean and horizon. Limited land-sea interfaces are visible at a distance.

 

The highest point of the existing ridge at 15 Edgecliffe Ave presently interrupts these views to a small degree. Views are available above the front and rear of this existing roof form.

 

·      Principle 2: The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. 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.

 

·      North-east through easterly views from front (northern-most) sitting room and balcony, first floor level (indicative proposal dashed in red):

The sitting room presently obtains views through corridors of vegetation and development from the north through east. Land- sea interface at the Bronte and Bondi Headlands is visible to the north at significant distance and between development on the northern side of Edgecliffe Ave. Horizon views are obtained to the north-east and east over the street and front setback of 15 Edgecliffe Ave. 

 

 

 

Figure 8: Looking north from the front balcony, attached to the front bedroom.

Figure 9: Looking north-east from the front balcony, attached to the front bedroom. Partial horizon obstruction.

 

 

 

Figure 10: Looking east from the front balcony, attached to the front bedroom. Partial horizon obstruction likely.

Figure 11: Looking east from the front bedroom. Partial horizon obstruction likely.

 

·      East through south-easterly views from central bedroom and balcony, first floor level (indicative proposal dashed in red):

The bedroom presently obtains interrupted views, filtered through corridors of vegetation and development from the east through south-east. Horizon views are obtained to the east around the existing roof form of 15 Edgecliffe Ave. A glimpse of land- sea interface at Mistral Point is visible to the south-east. 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 12: Looking south-east from the central bedroom. Complete horizon and land-sea interface obstruction likely.

Figure 13: Looking east from the central bedroom. Complete horizon obstruction likely.

Figure 14: Looking south-east, from the balcony attached to the central bedroom. Majority horizon and land-sea interface obstruction likely.

Figure 15: Looking east, from the balcony attached to the central bedroom. Complete horizon obstruction likely.

 

·      East through south-easterly views from rear (southern-most) bedroom and balcony, first floor level (indicative proposal dashed in red):

The bedroom presently obtains filtered views through corridors of vegetation and development from the east through south-east. Horizon views are obtained to the east around the existing roof form of 15 Edgecliffe Ave. A glimpse of land- sea interface at Mistral Point is visible to the south-east. 

 

 

 

Figure 16: Looking east from the balcony associated with the rear bedroom. Partial horizon obstruction likely.

Figure 17: Looking south- east from the balcony associated with the rear bedroom. Partial horizon obstruction likely.

 

 

Figure 18: Looking east from the rear bedroom. Majority horizon obstruction likely.

.

 

·      Principle 3: The third step is to 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.

 

·      First floor level front bedroom and balcony – Negligible view loss:

The front bedroom is at first floor level, with north and east aspects.

 

Under the proposal, a portion of the eastern horizon view stands to be obstructed only, as shown in Figures 8 to 11.  This view is obtained over the shared side boundary and above the front setback of 15 Edgecliffe Ave. Reduced horizon views will be retained to the bedroom and balcony above a lesser component of both the front setback and the street.

 

Based upon the above, the view impact to this part of the dwelling is considered negligible in the context of the principle.

·      First floor level central bedroom and balcony – Moderate view loss:

The central bedroom is at first floor level, with an east aspect.

 

Under the proposal, the entirety of the eastern horizon view stands to be obstructed, in addition to the glimpse of Mistral Point obtained to the south-east, as shown in figures 12 through 15.  The views are obtained over the shared side boundary and existing roof form of 15 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

Based upon the above, the view impact to this part of the dwelling is considered moderate in the context of the principle, based predominantly on the obstruction of the land-sea interface glimpse available at present.

 

·      First floor level rear bedroom and balcony – Minor view loss:

The rear bedroom is at first floor level, with south and east aspects.

 

Under the proposal, a portion of the eastern horizon view stands to be obstructed only, as shown in figures 16 through 18. Reduced horizon views and the existing land-sea interface at Mistral Point will be retained to the bedroom and balcony to the rear of 15 Edgecliffe Ave. This view is obtained over the shared side boundary and rear setback of 15 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

Based upon the above, the view impact to this part of the dwelling is considered minor in the context of the principle.

 

·      Principle 4: The fourth step is to 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 skilful 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.

 

There are a number of attributes that indicate the view sharing implications of the proposal present a reasonable planning outcome in respect of the property at 11 Edgecliffe Ave:

 

·      The views are obtained directly over the shared side boundary of 15 Edgecliffe Ave. A view achieved in this manner is specifically noted by the principle as being difficult to protect and often unrealistic to retain. This has consistently been the position of view sharing in similar circumstances in Edgecliffe Ave;

·      Views from bedrooms and views of the horizon are given lesser importance within the principle. The predominant obstruction is upon horizon views from bedrooms, which will be noticeably reduced but not prohibited. No iconic view elements are visible from this property;

·      The views are obtained above a dwelling that does not presently reflect the scale of surrounding contemporary development. Preventing a compliant and characteristic development purely to retain horizon views borrowed by the neighbour is considered unreasonable;

·      The proposed built form maintains the progressive stepping down of dwellings in an easterly direction, consistent with the topography of the foreshore scenic protection area;

·      Particularly where an eastern neighbour is underdeveloped, the topography enables many buildings on this alignment to obtain views over an underdeveloped neighbour. Retaining a view in this manner is typically problematic through ongoing development of the locality, as is the case with 11 Edgecliffe Ave;

·      The ceiling heights of the upper floor addition pitch off 2600mm and rise to 2900mm. Reducing this to a minimum 2400mm will not result in any improvement to the view issue, but will reduce amenity to occupants;

·      The planning controls anticipate development of the nature proposed, with the scheme sitting well within the scope of floor space, height, wall height, setback and site coverage controls;

·      The scheme complies with the controls. There exists little reasonable opportunity to redistribute the proposed floor space more skillfully in order to reduce view issues to 11 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

It is considered that retaining the subject views given the above circumstances is unrealistic in the context of ongoing development of the locality. The proposal presents a reasonable development outcome of the subject site, which will be modest in relation to the scope of the applicable planning controls and precedents of surrounding development.

 

Conclusion

The proposed development presents a suitable view sharing outcome in the context of the site and it’s constraints. Numerous sites in the vicinity have developed in a similar manner.

 

It is acknowledged that views from 11 Edgecliffe Ave will be obstructed under the proposal; however this occurs due to a scheme that achieves full compliance with the relevant built form controls. The impact occurs only to temporary views of 11 Edgecliffe Ave, which have remained available pending redevelopment of the subject site. This impact is considered inevitable with any reasonable and compliant redevelopment of 15 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

In this respect, requirement for further amendment to the proposal would unreasonably restrict the development potential of this site. The proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to view sharing and the planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

5.4      Solar Access and Overshadowing – Section 5.1

The subdivision pattern of the subject site and those adjoining are oriented roughly north-south. Indicative of this orientation, the amended shadow diagrams of 29 July 2014 indicate:

 

The western neighbour (11 Edgecliffe Ave) will be overshadowed to its eastern side elevation and rear open space in the morning hours, seeing no impact by 12 noon on 21 June.

The dwelling to the east (17 Edgecliffe Ave) will be overshadowed to its western side elevation and rear open space in the afternoon hours, seeing no impact prior to 12 noon. This dwelling is a single storey semi-detached dwelling.

 

The proposal will not prevent either of the adjoining sites from achieving the required three (3) hours solar access to primary north facing windows, living areas and principle open spaces on 21 June. 

The development achieves compliance with floor space, site coverage, setback, wall height and overall height controls. Based upon these key indicators of likely envelope on the site, the impact proposed is anticipated by the planning controls. The above described overshadowing impact is not considered unreasonable and does not arise out of an unreasonably large or badly designed development.

Notwithstanding the above, it is noted that the eastern neighbour at 17 Edgecliffe Ave is a single storey semi, which does not benefit from an alternate side aspect for light and ventilation. A one (1) metre reduction in length of the proposed ground floor balcony will facilitate an improved light and privacy outcome to a living space at the rear of 17 Edgecliffe Ave, with minimal compromise to the proposal. This amendment has been recommended by way of a condition of consent.

The proposal presents a scheme that complies with the objectives and controls of the DCP and subject to the above discussed condition, is supported in respect of Section 5.1 of the DCP.

 

5.5    Visual Privacy – Section 5.3

Rear elevation privacy

Two (2) dwellings to the rear of the subject site fronting Liguria Street raised issue with the rear elevation balconies of the proposed development, particularly a small upper floor balcony associated with a bedroom.

 

The proposed rear balconies occur at ground and first floor level, each with aspect to the rear of the site, being a primary source of light, ventilation and outlook.

 

The DCP requires a minimum rear setback of eight (8) metres, in effort to encourage a reasonable level of building separation, privacy and rear open space. The proposal exceeds the required rear setback, providing 11 metres to the ground floor balcony and 17 metres to the upper floor balcony.

 

A majority of dwellings in the vicinity provide balconies at upper floor level, many of which provide lesser setback to rear boundaries. To require deletion or reduction of the upper floor balcony on the basis of privacy with a setback of more than double that required by the DCP, is not considered justified.

 

The scheme is inclusive of screen planting along the rear boundary. The proposed planting is identified as achieving four (4) metres in height at maturity, which will provide definition of the boundary and privacy.

 

The balconies to upper floor, rear elevations are a typical characteristic of dwellings in this area. The rear elevation is supported in respect of the privacy provisions of Section 5.3.

 

West side elevation

The proposed west elevation entails five (5) new openings, all of which are opaque highlight windows. An existing window is also evident on this elevation, however is not proposed to change. No additional measures are necessary to mitigate privacy from the west elevation.

 

The western neighbour at 11 Edgecliffe Ave also raised privacy concerns from the rear elevation of the proposal. Balconies proposed on the rear elevation orient views toward the rear of the subject site and to the south-east, having negligible western aspect. The proposed balconies will not introduce any unreasonable privacy impact to the rear open space of 11 Edgecliffe Ave and are considered to present similar impact to those upper floor balconies existing to this neighbour.

 

East side elevation

The dwelling adjoining to the east of the subject site at 17 Edgecliffe Ave raised issue with privacy from the length of the side aspect of proposed balconies associated with the development. The side aspect has a length of 7.8 metres parallel to the common boundary, where overlooking will be possible.

 

The circumstances of these sites provide that some overlooking of eastern neighbours is inevitable, given the fall of the land to the east and the location of views. It is considered however, that suitable measures can be applied to encourage occupants of the proposal to look above the eastern neighbour to minimise privacy issues.

 

The following privacy conditions are recommended to further improve the privacy outcome to 17 Edgecliffe Ave:

 

·      Reduce the length of the eastern balcony aspect by one (1) metre to avoid elevated foot traffic adjacent a living room window and make some improvement to solar access to this window;

·      Increase the width of the proposed planter to one (1) metre, effectively reducing the angle through which view can be obtained down into the adjoining windows;

·      Provide planting and maintain to an approximate height of 1500mm.

 

The proposal is considered to achieve a satisfactory response to privacy to 17 Edgecliffe Ave, subject to the above recommended conditions and is supported in respect of Section 5.3

 

5.6      Car Parking and Access - Section 6

Garage design and location

The scheme entails a double garage fronting Edegcliffe Ave, sitting approximately four (4) metres forward of the bulk of the dwelling.

 

Garage design and location

The DCP seeks to encourage parking facilities being located behind the building line in order to avoid visual dominance of the frontage, the streetscape and ensure integration into the architectural character of the dwelling.

 

The proposal includes a garage forward of the building line, which is to be constructed up to three (3) metres from the front boundary of the site.

 

Precedents of double garages forward of the building line are scattered throughout Edgecliffe Ave. Notably, large double garages occupying a majority of the frontages of 11, 25, 26 and 30 Edgecliffe Ave exist within the visual catchment of the site.  In light of this precedent, it is considered unreasonable to oppose the proposed garage design only in respect of location.

 

While the garage outcome is not desirable, it is considered the design has sufficiently integrated this element into the building. Varied materials and a terrace above allow that the structure is integrated into the façade. The lower floor level of the garage also allows that the structure sits lower in the site when viewed from the street, reducing prominence.

 

In order to further reduce the prominence of the garage and in accordance with the provisions of the DCP, a condition has been recommended to recess the door 300mm within the structure.

 

Given this, the proposal is considered compatible with the existing streetscape and is acceptable in this regard.

 

5.7      Foreshore Scenic Protection Area -  – Section B10

The development is capable of integrating effectively with existing development within the foreshore area, incorporating a high level of articulation and visual interest. Materials and finishes are not specified in significant detail and as such are recommended for resubmission following consent to ensure effective integration with surrounds and in avoiding reflectivity issues.

 

The proposed building bulk responds satisfactorily to the site. It is unlikely that the development will interrupt drainage patterns or substantially change the appearance of the surrounding land. Numerous dwellings of similar scale exist in the vicinity of the subject site, such that there exists a firm precedence for such development within the visual catchment.

 

The scheme presents satisfactory design merit in relation to the foreshore, in-so-far as it’s visual presentation, being generally consistent with that evident to surrounding development. The proposal is considered to be generally acceptable in relation to the foreshore.

 

6.    Section 79C Environmental 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.

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

Section 79C(1)(a)(i) – Provisions of any environmental planning instrument

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

The proposal is not considered to compromise the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the locality.

Section 79C(1)(a)(ii) – Provisions of any draft environmental planning instrument

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) – Provisions of any development control plan

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls within the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013, except where discussed in the key issues section of this report.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iiia) – Provisions of any Planning Agreement or draft Planning Agreement

Not applicable.

Section 79C(1)(a)(iv) – Provisions of the regulations

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

Section 79C(1)(b) – The likely impacts of the development, including environmental impacts on the natural and built environment and social and economic impacts in the locality

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential character in the locality. The proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

Section 79C(1)(c) – The suitability of the site for the development

The site is located in close proximity to local services and public transport. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and associated structures. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the proposed development.

Section 79C(1)(d) – Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or EP&A Regulation

The issues raised in submissions have been addressed in the above sections of this report.

Section 79C(1)(e) – The public interest

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

7.    Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

The Section 94A Development Contributions Plan, effective from 17 July 2012, is applicable to the proposed development. In accordance with the plan, the following monetary levy is required:

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$643,754.00

1.0%

$6437.54

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The design will be sympathetic to the character of the immediate surrounds of the site and the locality. The scheme is considered to eventuate in reasonable impacts to the amenity of surrounding properties, specifically in relation to bulk and scale, view sharing, solar access and privacy.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/191/2014 for substantial alterations and additions to existing dwelling including new first floor, additions at ground floor, double garage at lower ground level, swimming pool to rear and associated works at No. 15 Edgecliffe Ave, South Coogee, 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

Garage amendments

2.     The proposed garage door shall be recessed a minimum of 300mm into the garage structure to reduce prominence to the street.

 

Balcony amendments

3.     The proposed rear balcony and associated outdoor room shall be amended in accordance with the following requirements, as shown in red on the approved plans, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.     The balcony shall be reduced in length by one (1) metre when measured from the rear;

 

b.     The planter along the eastern aspect of the balcony and outdoor room shall have a minimum width of one (1) metre;

 

c.     Suitable planting shall be provided in the planter along the eastern aspect of the balcony and outdoor room, in order to facilitate privacy to 17 Edgecliffe Ave.

 

Pool equipment

4.     Filtering equipment associated with the new pool shall be contained within an acoustic enclosure. The enclosure shall be designed and constructed by a suitably qualified person and meeting the requirements of Condition 63. The pool plant equipment and enclosure detail shall be shown on the plans and submitted to the satisfaction of the PCA, prior to issuing a Construction Certificate for the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 15 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            14 October 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D86/14

 

 

Subject:                  52-52A Jennings Street, Matraville (DA/454/2011/A)

Folder No:                   DA/454/2011/A

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by increasing the size of the approved inground pool and rear deck, and alterations to associated side screening and rear elevation openings.

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Mr M D Woods

Owner:                        Frakson Enterprises Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview8365.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as a Council employee is a daughter of the rear adjoining property owner.

 


Proposal

 

This Section 96 (2) application seeks consent to modify the approved development in the following manner:

 

§  Increase the size of the deck and awning from 25sqm to 32sqm to align with the neighbour’s deck and awning.  The awning is proposed to be retractable.

§  Shift the swimming pool further west (i.e. 2.2m towards the rear) to allow extra space for deck.  NB: The pool size to remain unchanged (38,500 litres).

§  Modify the privacy wall to the northern side, inclusive of the provision of glass blocks along the top of the wall in lieu of a masonry screen.

§  Replace the window and sliding door on the rear (western) elevation with a new larger sliding door. 

§  Change to an approved shed and screen, including removal of the approved screen and increase to the size of the shed from 2sqm to 10sqm.

 

The subject Section 96(2) application proposes to amend the development consent of Development Application (DA) No. 454/011.  This consent only related to the swimming pool and elevated deck to the rear of the existing dwelling as well as the adjacent associated structures (such as the side screening), thus not the rear garden shed.  The shed was subject to Development Consent No. 593/2005.  Accordingly the proposed changes to the existing shed cannot be facilitated under the subject application.  Accordingly, a condition requiring the proposed amendments to the rear shed to be deleted from the current Section 96 application will be applied should approval be granted. Separately, the applicant should be advised to lodge a Section 96 application to amend the development consent of DA No. 593/2005 to facilitate any changes to the shed.

 

Based on the proposed changes that can be facilitated under the subject application, condition 1 will need to be reworded to incorporate the subject Section 96 plans which are listed in the table below:

 

         TABLE 2 –Amended plans (Section 96)

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

S01 Revision B

U + I Building Studio

12/8/2014

15/8/2014

S02 Revision B

U + I Building Studio

12/8/2014

15/8/2014

S03 Revision B

U + I Building Studio

12/8/2014

15/8/2014

 

Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Jennings Street and is addressed as 52-52A Jennings Street, Matraville.  The subject site contains an existing two storey, dual occupancy residential dwelling.

 

The site is a regular shaped allotment and has a street frontage to Jennings Street of approximately 15.24 metres and a depth of 43.585 metres. The site runs east to west, sloping gently down to the west (rear). The site has a total area of 664.4sqm.

 

The locality is residential and comprises a mixture of single and two storey dwellings, some being attached dual occupancies.

 

Relevant Background

 

Development Application (DA) No. 593/2005:

DA No. 593/2005 for the “demolition of the existing dwelling house and erection of a new attached dual occupancy” was approved (subject to conditions) by Council on 26 July 2005.  This application included the erection of a rear shed and associated screen.

 

Development Application (DA) No. 454/2011:

DA No. 454/2011 for the “construction of a new swimming pool and elevated deck to the rear of the existing dwelling” was approved (subject to conditions) at the Council meeting held on 19 August 2011.  The application also included the removal of the mature Persea americanna (Avocado tree located centrally in the rear yard) along with a small citrus tree in order to accommodate the proposed swimming pool, as well as the erection of privacy screens, including to the sides of the deck and to the side of the swimming pool.

 

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 submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

·      29 Solander Street, Matraville

 

Issues

Comments

Boundary Encroachment:

 

A boundary discrepancy with the Site and the adjoining property (29 Solander Street) to the west.

 

 

 

An assessment of the garden shed cannot be facilitated under the subject application for the reasons discussed in the section entitled ‘Proposal’.  The applicant will be advised to re-lodge an appropriate application for consideration.  The matter with respect to the boundary line will be further addressed under the separate application.  Any associated fencing must not encroach into any neighbouring properties unless suitable arrangements have been made with the owners of these properties.

 

 

Section 96 assessment:

 

Under the provisions of Section 96(2) 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:

 

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

 

Comment:  Refer to section below on ‘Substantially the Same Development’.

 

b)      it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

 

Comment:  No referral is required in this case.

 

c)      it has notified the application in accordance with:  the regulations, if the regulations so require, or  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan, and

 

Comment:  The application has been notified as required.  Reference should be made to the section above ‘Submissions’.

 

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

 

Comment:  Reference should be made to the section above ‘Submissions’.  The objection has been considered.

 

(3)    In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 79C (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

 

Comment:  The relevant matters of Section 79C (1) are addressed below.

 

Substantially the Same Development:

There have been a number of decisions in the Land and Environment Court that have addressed the issue of whether a development is substantially the same development as previously approved. In Vacik Pty Limited v Penrith City Council (1992 NSWLEC 8 (24 February 1992) Stein J said:

 

“In my opinion ‘substantially’ when used in this section means essentially or materially or having the same essence.”

 

In Moto Projects (no 2) Pty Limited v North Sydney Council (1999) 106 LGERA 298, Bignold J made the following observations:

 

“The relevant satisfaction required by s96(2)(a) to be found to exist in order that the modification power be available involves an ultimate finding of fact based upon the primary facts found. I must be satisfied that the modified development is substantially the same as the originally approved development.

 

The requisite factual finding obviously requires a comparison between the development, as currently approved, and the development as proposed to be modified. The result of the comparison must be a finding that the modified development is ‘essentially or materially’ the same as the approved development.

 

The comparative task does not merely involve a comparison of the physical features or components of the development as currently approved and modified where the comparative exercise is undertaken in some type of sterile vacuum. Rather the comparison involves an appreciation, qualitative, as well as quantitative, of the developments being compared in their proper contexts (including the circumstances in which the development consent was granted) because the requirements of s96(2)(a) calls for an ultimate factual finding on the primary facts of the case, only illustrative assistance is to be gained from consideration of other cases involving their own factual findings on relevant satisfaction required by s96(2)(a). References to those cases indicates that environmental impacts of proposed modifications to approved developments are relevant to the ultimate factual finding.”

 

In determining if a development application is substantially the same as that approved, the question is whether such changes result in it being able to be said that the modified development is essentially or materially the same as that approved. For the reasons listed below, it is considered that the proposed development is substantially the same as that which was originally approved.

 

§  There will be no fundamental change to the nature, use and definition of the approved development. 

§  The scope of the modification will not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent.

§  There will be no change to the size or description of the land to which the consent relates. 

§  The qualitative impacts will be similar to that of the approved development subject to adequate screening height. This is discussed further below.  No additional matters will arise.

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The proposal is not inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012. The relevant clauses of the RLEP are addressed in the ‘Key Issues’ section of this report.

 

Development Control Plan 2013

The amended development will generally be consistent with the objectives and performance requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed changes to the outdoor area are minor and will not impose any additional impacts on the neighbouring dwelling with regard to visual or acoustic privacy subject to an appropriate screening height, as discussed below.  Nor will the amendments result in a substantial increase in impermeable surfaces that would significantly impact on on-site filtration and amount of runoff.

 

Key Issues

Amenity: Visual Privacy

In accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013) new development must provide a reasonable level of visual privacy for occupants of the subject site and neighbouring properties. 

 

The increase to the size of the outdoor deck will not result in any significant, additional privacy impacts to the neighbours dwellings and maintain an adequate level of on-site amenity.  To the north of the deck is an existing terrace area at the neighbouring property (52-52B Jennings Street, Matraville), however effective screening will be maintained between the subject site and the neighbouring site.  The screening will maintain an adequate height to ensure no overlooking into the neighbouring property when in standing position on the deck.  However this is not the case with respect to the screening adjacent to the northern side of the pool.  The amended scheme reduces the height of the screening in this location from 1.8m to about 1m.  To adequately control the potential of overlooking when standing on the northern lip of the pool, the screening along the northern side of the pool should be provided to a height of at least 1.6m, measured from the finished surface of the lip to the top of the screening.  In this regard, it is recommended that new condition 42 be as following:

 

42.             The screening adjacent to the northern side of the swimming pool shall be at least 1.6m high, measured from the finished surface of the swimming pool lip to the top of the screening.

 

Plans are to be amended to reflect the above requirements, prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

NB:  The screening along the northern side of the site (adjacent to both the deck and pool) has been altered to consist of glass blocks along its top.  No objections are raised to this change as the intent of minimising overlooking will be maintained.  The glass blocks will assist in increasing light into the sites, in comparison to the approved solid wall.

 

The increase in the size of the outdoor terrace will result in an approximate 15.5 metre separation between the subject terrace and the boundary line with the rear property at 29 Solander Street, Matraville.  This will maintain a significant building separation to ensure visual privacy impacts are reasonably controlled.

 

The approved privacy screen along the southern side of the deck will be maintained to mitigate any opportunity for overlooking into the adjoining property, as well as maintain adequate on-site amenity.

 

Amenity: Private Open Space

The proposed modifications will maintain compliance with the site coverage and private open space provisions. The minimum area for soft landscaping required for the site is 25% or 83 sqm.  The level of soft landscaping will be reduced from 134sqm to 118sqm. This equates to 35.5% of the site area being maintained as soft landscaping, which is compliant with the relevant controls.

 

Other Amenity Impacts

The proposed modifications to the original consent will not have any adverse visual amenity impacts and in fact will complement the existing development. Additionally, there will be no significant solar access and view impacts arising from the proposed modifications.

 

Site Suitability

The site has previously been assessed as being suitable for the proposed development under the original consent granted by Council. The current proposal represents modifications of a minor nature with the extension of the rear deck, and inground pool forming part of the approved development which will have an acceptable visual and amenity impacts as per the above assessment. Therefore, the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed modification.

 

Public Interest

No additional matters result from the amendments relating the rear deck and pool.  The amendment proposed to the rear shed and adjacent screen cannot be dealt with under the subject Section 96 application as this application only refers to a consent that did not relate to the approval of these structures.  Approval of these structures was under a separate application.  In the interest of properly applying the provisions of the EP & A Act, 1979, and exercising of planning duties, an amendment to the consent of this application will need to be sought by the applicant.  It is recommended that the applicant be advised accordingly.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

 

Having regard to the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modifications to the rear deck and swimming pool are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted for under Development Consent No. 454/2011.  Condition 1 is recommended to be amended to reflect the proposed amendments pertaining to the rear deck and swimming pool.  Condition 2 is recommended to be amended to require an increase to the reduced height to the side screening adjacent to the swimming pool to retain reasonable privacy impact.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/454/2011/A by increasing the size of the approved in ground pool and rear deck and undertake alterations to the adjacent associated structure (such as the side screening and rear elevation openings) at 52–52A Jennings Street, Matraville in the following manner

 

·       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

Dated

Received

1103-01.1

Michael Bremner Pty Ltd.

3 June 2011

17 June 2011

1103-02.1 (Issue C)

Michael Bremner Pty Ltd.

3 June 2011

17 June 2011

1103-02.02 (Issue C)

Michael Bremner Pty Ltd.

3 June 2011

17 June 2011

1103-02.01 (Issue C)

Michael Bremner Pty Ltd.

3 June 2011

17 June 2011

 

·           Section 96 ‘A’ plans numbered S01 – S03 all Revision B, dated 12/08/14 drawn by U + I Building Studio and received by Council on 15 August 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 Conditions Nos:

41.              No approval is granted under Section 96 application, DA/454/2011/, to the rear garden shed and associated deck as indicated on the original approved plans (DA/593/2005).

 

42.              The screening adjacent to the northern side of the swimming pool shall be at least 1.6m high, measured from the finished surface of the swimming pool lip to the top of the screening.

 

Plans are to be amended to reflect the above requirements, prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            14 October 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D87/14

 

 

Subject:                  23 Araluen Street, Kingsford (DA/395/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/395/2014

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new first floor addition and new retaining wall on the western side boundary

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Mrs D Nicholson

Owner:                        Mr C C Nicholson and Mrs D L Nicholson

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview42024.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for demolition of internal walls and the extension of the rear ground floor section upto the western common side boundary to provide an open plan living area consisting of a new lounge, kitchen and breakfast area.  The proposal also includes an additional storey accommodating three bedrooms, bathroom, ensuite and walk-in-wardrobe.  Excavation of the front yard and new retaining wall on the western side boundary is also proposed.

 

An amended plan was received by Council on 20 August 2014 to address Council’s concerns in relation to privacy and the length of the eastern wall without articulation.

 

The amended plan provides for the following changes:

 

·      The eastern external wall of the computer room is recessed a further 500mm from the eastern side boudnary; and

 

·      The bottom section of the window to the computer room on the first floor level to the eastern elevation is fixed with opaque glass to a height of 1.5m.

 

The assessment is based on this amended plan.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Araluen Street in Kingsford and is currently occupied by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling house. The site is regular in shape, has an area of 263.8m² and a frontage width of 8.2m.

 

The topography of the site slopes away from the rear towards the front of the site by approximately 2.76m to 3.14m.

 

The surrounding area is characterised predominantly by established attached and detached single and two storey residential developments.

 

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:

 

21 Araluen Street, Kingsford

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing impacts

The proposed development will reduce solar access to the rear yard.

The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the solar access requirements to adjoining sites.  Refer to Key Issues section of this report, which addresses Solar Access and Overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

Western external side wall

Visual impact of the external wall proposed at the common boundary.  Would like the external wall to be painted to an agreed colour.  If this wall is to be built up to the boundary unsure how the site will be able to access during construction, finished without access from their property and accessed for maintenance in the years to come.

Given that the proposed western external wall is located within the boundary of the subject site, the owner of the subject site will remain responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the wall. 

 

Also an advisory note is included within the consent  which requires the land owner or principal contractor to obtain:

 

§  the consent of the owners of such adjoining or supported land to trespass or encroach, or

§  an access order under the Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000, or

§  an easement under section 88K of the Conveyancing Act 1919, or

 

In relation to the external wall being painted on the western side boundary, a condition is included which requires the wall to be rendered and painted in a light colour in order to be generally compatible with the existing building and adjacent development. 

 

Dilapidation report

Would like a condition imposed within the consent to ensure that no damages result to the structural integrity of their property during construction. 

A condition is included within the consent which requires a dilapidation report to be undertaken to adjoining property.

Existing chimney

Would like Council to review the proposed intention of the existing common chimney of either maintained or if removed how it may affect the property of no. 21 Araluen future use.

The owners of no. 21 Araluen Street have granted permission for the owners of No. 23 Araluen Street to remove the "common chimney" during construction works.   However, a condition is included which requires the chimney to be reinstated to match its original intent and form in order for the chimney to be functional for use for the property owners of No. 21 Araluen Street in the future.

 

25 Araluen Street, Kingsford

Issue

Comment

Inadequate information

Inadequate information to assess the development application.

The information provided is sufficient in order for Council to make a proper assessment of the application.

 

Council does not rely solely on the information provided; a full assessment has been undertaken to ensure that the design meets the objectives and controls of the LEP and DCP.

 

Side setback

The side setbacks do not comply with the objectives and control requirement of the DCP, Sub-Section 3.3.2 for Side setbacks.

 

The side setback is insufficient to protect the amenity of no. 25 Araluen Street and will adversely impact on their property and rear yard.  The wall is unarticulated and will visually impact on their property.

 

An amended plan has been received recessing the wall of the computer room on the first floor level by a further 500mm from the eastern side boundary to create articulation and reduce the bulk of the wall as viewed from the neighbouring property no. 25 Araluen Street.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report, which address side setbacks.

 

External wall height

The wall height is over the numerical height control requirement in the DCP and will have significant detrimental impacts to their property in terms of sense of enclosure, loss of solar access and ventilation and potential overlooking concerns.

 

It is noted that the external wall height appears much higher when viewed from the neighbouring property at no. 25 Araluen Street.  This is due to the topography of the site where the adjoining property at no. 25 Araluen Street is much lower than the subject site.  The development has been amended to create articulation to the eastern side of the wall by recessing the wall of the computer room on the first floor level. 

 

In addition to the above, the development complies with the maximum height control under the LEP 2012.  Also, the proposed eastern side setback and external wall height of the dwelling (for development on sloping sites) satisfy the objectives, and Controls of the DCP 2013, as they relate to building envelope and building design.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report, which addresses building height, solar access and privacy.

 

FSR

The proposed development is over the allowable FSR as indicated on the map and does not comply with the objectives stated in Clause 4.4 of the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

 

Sites less than 300m2 are assessed on merit. Refer to Key Issues section of this report, which addresses FSR.

Visual overlooking and loss of privacy

The proposed rear and east facing windows will cause significant overlooking and loss of visual privacy to their private living areas and yard. 

 

The proposal fails to satisfy the privacy planning principle established in Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC

313. Would like the planning principles to be considered in relation to the above arguments.

 

The planning principles established in Meriton v Sydney City Council [2004] NSWLEC 313 have been considered as part of this assessment.  It is not considered that the design of the development will result in any overlooking concerns to the neighbouring property at no. 25 Araluen Street to warrant its refusal or redesign. 

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report, which addresses visual privacy and overlooking.

 

 

Loss of amenity due to scale and bulk of development

Lack of setbacks and articulation of the first floor creates a sense of enclosure due to the immense bulk and scale of the proposed development.  In addition to the above, access to light and ventilation will be impact as a result of the overdevelopment.

 

As discussed below in the Key Issues section of this report the bulk & scale, height and setback of the development is considered to be acceptable and satisfies the relevant objectives of Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

An amended plan has been received recessing the wall of the computer room on the first floor level by a further 500mm from the eastern side boundary to create articulation and reduce the bulk of the wall as viewed from the neighbouring property no. 25 Araluen Street.

 

The amended proposal is considered to be an acceptable design scheme within the context of the area, which is zoned R2 and the scale and bulk of the development is generally compatible with the desired future character for the locality.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses Solar Access and Overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

 

Loss of solar access and ventilation

The size and scale of the proposed development, particularly extremely immense wall heights, the lack of setback on the first floor level and extension to the rear building alignment will impact on their solar access and result in overshadowing impacts. 

 

The proposal fails to satisfy the solar access planning principle established in The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082.

 

The planning principles established in The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082 have been considered as part of this assessment and it was considered that the development has provided adequate separation between neighbouring buildings to allow for reasonable levels of solar access and ventilation.

 

In addition to the above, the development complies with the maximum height control under the LEP 2012.  Also, the proposed external wall height generally satisfies the objectives, and Control requirements of the DCP 2013 for development on sloping sites, as they relate to building envelope and building design.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses Solar Access and Overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Part C1:  Low Density Residential

Sub-Clause 3.2 - Floor Space Ratio

Floor space ratio (FSR) is a measure that assists in controlling the mass and bulk of a development.  FSR operates in conjunction with building height, wall height and setback controls to define the 3 dimensional spaces within which a development may occur, that is, the building envelope.  FSR is expressed as a ratio of the permissible gross floor area to the site area. The maximum permissible FSR for any development is prescribed in the RLEP.

 

The subject site has a land area of 263.8m².  The Randwick LEP 2012 requires that for lot sizes less than 300m², FSR is assessed on merit. The proposed FSR on the site is 0.71:1 or 187.48m².

 

The character, size, bulk, scale and height of the proposed development is generally consistent with that of other developments in neighbouring sites such that the proposed development will not be visually intrusive and will not read as an overdevelopment in the existing streetscape and locality.  The proposed development is compatible in size and form to other dwelling houses in the immediate locality.

 

Adequate separation between neighbouring buildings is provided to allow for reasonable solar access; and visual and acoustic privacy has been addressed below in the Key Issues and Areas of Non Compliance section of this report.

 

In addition to the above, the development complies with the maximum height control under the LEP 2012.  Also, the proposed external wall height satisfies the objectives and Controls of the DCP 2013, as they relate to building envelope and building design.

 

The application is considered to be acceptable in this regard given general compliance with the DCP controls.

 

Sub-Clause 3.2 - Maximum Building Height & Maximum Wall Height

The proposed maximum height of the dwelling is 8.87m, which complies with the 9.5m maximum height requirement set out in the RLEP 2012. The DCP stipulates that the maximum external wall height must not exceed 8m for sloping site.  The subject site has a fall from the rear to the front of the site of approximately 2.76m to 3.14m and is considered to be a sloping site.

 

The proposed external wall height varies from approximately 5.95m to 7.7m at the highest point due to slope of the site. The proposal complies with the maximum wall height of 8m set out in the DCP.

 

Setbacks - Section 3.3

The Randwick DCP 2013 provides the following objectives controls for setbacks:

 

Objectives

·      To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

·      To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

·      To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.

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

·      To enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

Side setbacks - Section 3.3.2

Controls

i)      Comply with the minimum side setbacks as follows:

 

Semi-Detached Dwellings

Frontage width

Ground storey

First storey

Second storey & above

Frontage between 6m and 8m = 900mm for all levels

 

Eastern side:

Proposed ground = 1.19m

Western side:

Sited on the boundary with a nil setback.

 

Eastern side:

Proposed first floor level = 1.19m and the computer room is setback 1.69m.

 

Western side:

Sited on the boundary with a nil setback.

-

 

The subject site has a frontage width of 8.205m.  For semi-detached dwellings there are no minimum side setback requirements for frontage widths greater than 8m.  To the eastern side the ground floor and first floor addition is setback 1.19m from the boundary. 

 

The DCP allows for buildings to be sited on the boundary when it is proposed to extend an existing semi-detached dwelling along the alignment of the common wall boundary. The proposed development is siting the ground and first floor additions on the western side of the common wall boundary with no. 21 Araluen Street.  Whilst it is noted that the wall of the ground and first floor additions extends further than the adjoining semi at no. 21 Araluen Street and is visible from their rear yard, this is considered to be acceptable as the proposed development will not significantly reduce solar access to this property and it is expected that any future development potential for the adjoining site will mitigate these visual concerns.

 

Further, a condition is included which requires the external wall of the western side elevation to be rendered and painted in a light colour to maintain the integrity and amenity of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 21 Araluen Street.

 

To the eastern side the ground floor and first floor addition is setback 1.19m from the boundary.  An amended plan has been received recessing the wall of the computer room on the first floor level by a further 500mm from the eastern side boundary. This will create articulation and reduce the bulk of the wall as viewed from the neighbouring property at no. 25 Araluen Street.

 

The proposed setbacks to the eastern side elevation are acceptable and meet the objectives of the control in that there is adequate separation between the neighbouring building at no. 25 Araluen Street for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access as discussed in the relevant sections of the report.

 

In addition to the above, the development complies with the maximum height control under the LEP 2012.  Also, the proposed external wall height complies with the 8m external wall height control for sloping sites and satisfies the objectives and Controls of the DCP 2013, as they relate to building envelope and building design.

 

The proposed side setbacks of the development are considered acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the Control.

 

Sub-Clause 4.2 - Additional Provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings & Sub-Clause 4.5 - Colours, Materials and Finishes

The proposed semi-detached dwelling is supported as the proposed first floor addition is located behind the main roof form retaining the symmetrical profile of both semi-detached dwellings. The proposed balcony provides articulation and is partially located within the roof form of the dwelling. Also, it is not considered that the balcony will detract from the coherent entity of the front façade given that the existing property is already painted with a different colour finish to the adjoining semi. Further, the proposed colour bond roof ‘Woodland Grey’ is of a colour that will not detract from the overall design and character of the two semis. 

 

The ground and first floor additions are constructed on the common wall boundary with the adjoining semi.  While the wall extends further than the adjoining semi at no. 21 Araluen Street and is visible from their rear yard, this is considered to be acceptable as the proposed development will not be significantly reducing solar access to this property.  Additionally, it is expected that any future development potential for the adjoining site will mitigate the visual concerns.

 

The height, bulk and form of the first floor addition is generally similar to that of neighbouring dwellings in the street and will not detract from the overall character of the existing semi-detached dwellings.

 

The proposed development will meet the objectives of the above control.

 


Solar Access and Overshadowing – Section 5.1

Objectives

·      To ensure new dwellings and alterations and additions are sited and designed to maximise solar access to the living areas and private open space.

 

·      To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

 

·      To provide adequate ambient daylight to dwellings and minimise the need for artificial lighting.

 

Controls

Solar access to neighbouring development:

i)     A portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

ii)    The private open space of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. The area covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreation activities. 

 

v)    Existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. Where the neighbouring dwellings do not contain any solar panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes of neighbouring dwellings, which are at least 6m above ground level (existing), so that future solar panels capturing not less than 3 hours of sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June may be installed.

 

Given the orientation of the site in an north south aspect it is expected that majority of the rear yard of the subject site will be overshadowed by the development between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.  Despite the orientation of the site the shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that the subject site will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June to parts of their rear yard which complies with the above controls.

 

An objection was received from the neighbouring dwelling at no. 25 Araluen Street in relation to solar access and overshadowing impacts to their private living areas.

 

The DCP only requires that a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June are received to a portion of the north-facing living area windows and private open space of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed development meets this requirement as the additional shadows impacts to the neighbouring property at No. 25 Araluen Street are mainly in the afternoon such that it will still receive direct sunlight in the morning and early afternoon.  There are no north facing windows or solar panels that will be impacted by the proposed development. The northern windows face the street.

 

The application is considered to be acceptable in this regard given general compliance with the DCP controls.

 

Visual Privacy – Section 5.3

Objective

·      To ensure development minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy. 

 

Controls

 

i)   All habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings.

 

ii)  The windows to the living areas must be oriented away from the adjacent dwellings where possible. In this respect, they may be oriented to:

·           Front or rear of the allotment;

·           Side courtyard.

 

iii) Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy.

 

An objection was received from the neighbouring dwelling at No. 25 Araluen Street in relation to overlooking and visual privacy impacts to their property.  An additional submission was received requesting the following:

 

·      Reiterate window W3 to the computer room to be indented, and fixed louvres at an upward angle to be installed for this particular window. Window W3 be reduced in size to match the other windows off the bedrooms on the second storey addition.

·      Windows W2 and W3 to have fixed translucent glazing applied to the height of 1.6 metres from the finished floor.

·      Window W7 on the ground floor to be treated with translucent glazing to the height of 1.6 metres from the finished floor.

·      Window W6 off the kitchen to open outward only sufficiently to allow airflow, and not to intrude on our privacy.  

 

Subject to conditions, it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any additional unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. 

 

The new glazed door and window openings to the rear elevation will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site. The new window opening and balcony to the northern elevation will primarily overlook the front yard of the subject site and street.

 

To the western and eastern elevations highlight windows, opaque glass or roof skylights are provided.  It is not expected that the skylight windows will result in any unreasonable privacy impacts. The windows on the ground level will not result in any privacy impacts as W6 is of opaque glass and are operable windows opening out in an upward direction which restricts views into the rear yard of no. 25 Araluen Street. Window opening W7 is a highlight window and has a sill height of 1.8m from the floor level restricting views.  Window opening W8 is of opaque glass louvres which minimises overlooking and is to a laundry which is considered to be a low use room.

However, to ensure that the height of the highlight windows along the first floor level of the eastern elevation (windows W2, W3, W4 & W5) do not result in privacy impacts, a condition is included requiring these windows to have increased sill heights of 1.6m from the floor level, which will be compliant with the DCP requirement.

 

Subject to the above recommendations, the development will satisfy the objectives of the DCP control for Visual privacy.

 

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.  Also, when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts eventuates in a generally positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

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/395/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new first floor addition and new retaining wall on the western side boundary, at No. 23 Araluen Street, Kingsford, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     All proposed window openings along the eastern elevation at first floor level 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.

b.     The external wall facing no. 21 Araluen Street on the western side boundary shall be rendered and painted in light neutral colour to maintain the integrity and amenity of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 21 Araluen Street. Detail of the proposed colour shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

c.     The chimney on the common wall boundary shall be reinstated to match its original intent and form to be functional for use for the property owners of No. 21 Araluen Street.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 23 Araluen Street, Kingsford

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            14 October 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D88/14

 

 

Subject:                  9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/303/2013/A)

Folder No:                   DA/303/2013/A

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of approved development by relocation of swimming pool adjacent to southern boundary, alterations to front facade (west), extension of balconies on levels 4 and 5, addition of planter on level 4, extension of floor area to east on level three, addition of plant room on level 2, alterations to landscaping, internal changes and repositioning of skylight Original consent: Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 2 and part 4 storey dwelling house with garage, swimming pool and associated landscape works (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                JPR Architects

Owner:                        Mr N Kotzohambos, Mrs P Kotzohambos

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval with conditions

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview17294.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

1.      Proposed Modification

 

This section 96 application seeks to modify the approved development as follows:

 

Level 1

·      Relocate the plant and storage room to the southern side of the property under the modified pool location.

Level 2

·      Reconfigure the layout of the internal area;

·      Move the glass line and extend the side walls 3.3m to the east;

·      Undertake additional excavation at the western end for a plant room and cellar;

·      Relocate the swimming pool and spa to the southern side of the property; and

·      Provide a landscaped terrace and planter in the position of approved pool on the northern side of the property.

Level 3

·      Reconfigure the internal space;

·      Undertake additional excavation on the western side of the stairwell for a store and plant room;

·      Move the glass line 3.3m to the east and extend the southern side boundary wall 1.2m to the east; and

·      Construct a 2.58m deep balcony the full width of the rear elevation.

Level 4

·      Construct a balcony between 2.8m and 3.2m deep with bi-fold doors adjacent to the dining and living area.

Level 5

·      Construct a balcony 1.2m deep and a privacy screen along its southern and northern edge and bi-fold doors adjacent to the master bedroom and bedroom 2;

·      Remove the step in the north-eastern corner of the building;

·      Construct a balcony 3m deep adjacent to bedroom 3 at the front of the building;

·      Modify the street elevation with new window openings and louvres; and

·      Reduce the southern side setback to the ensuite and walk in robe by 300mm from 1.8m to 1.5m.

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 4 in DP 9452 and Lot A in DP 366853, No. 9 Seaside parade, South Coogee. The site currently accommodates a vacant dwelling house in poor condition.

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, opposite its intersection with Edgecliff Avenue. The site has a significant fall from the street to the rear with a cross fall of approximately 9.5m. The rear boundary of the site is defined by the mean high water mark.

 

3.      Site History

 

Unauthorised building works from 2004 to present

Unauthorised works were undertaken by previous owners on the outbuildings to the rear of the site. A condition was imposed on DA/303/2013 requiring it being demolished and replaced with landscaped area

DA/648/2005

On 25 November 2005, development approval was granted by Council for demolition of the existing dwelling house and excavation and construction of a dwelling house over 5 levels. That consent was not activated

DA/456/2008

On 25 November 2008, development approval was granted for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a detached dwelling house over 5 levels with double garage, decks and landscaping. The approved development had an FSR of 0.67:1

DA/303/2013

On 3 December 2013 development approval was granted by Council for demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a 4 storey dwelling house and associated landscaping. The approved dwelling house has an 0.65:1. The subject Section 96 is to this development approval.

 

4.      Key Issues

 

4.1    Section 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 has been complied with:

 

Substantially the same development:

The scope of modifications primarily involves the addition of upper level balconies, additional floorspace within the approved building envelope and relocation of the swimming pool. The proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved development and it will remain consistent with the original consent subject to the deletion of the proposed rear balconies at levels 3, 4 and 5 which extend beyond the rear alignment of the approved development.

 

Notification and consideration of submissions:

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

 

Issues

Comments

No. 11 Seaside Parade

(adjoining to the south)

Overshadowing by the pool

The additional overshadowing resulting from the pool being relocated adjacent to the southern boundary is a result of the site constraints in terms of its east-west orientation and steep topography. In this circumstance the shadow impacts are considered reasonable given the pool complies with Council’s side boundary setback control of 900mm.

Pool breaches foreshore building line

Swimming pools are allowed below the foreshore building line subject to an assessment against relevant criteria in Clause 6.6 of LEP 2012 (see discussion under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 section below).

Loss of views and privacy

 

Refer to the discussion under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

Issues

Comments

Loss of views from 2nd level on balcony from proposed shade structure/balustrade at level 3

As above

Non-compliance with the Floor Space Ratio (FSR) control

The non-compliance largely relates to floor area contained within the approved building envelope. The additional floor area will not result in any adverse visual bulk or amenity impacts to surrounding properties. The variation to the FSR control is considered acceptable.

Non-compliance with Council’s setback controls

The proposed modifications comply with Council’s RDCP side setback controls.

Proposed wall height will be an unacceptable scale

The proposed modifications will not affect the approved wall height except with the extension of the side walls at level 2 to enclose the entertainment area. The proposed wall extension complies with Council’s RDCP wall height controls.

Proposal would result in further loss of solar access

The proposed swimming pool will result in some additional overshadowing. Refer to discussion above.

Inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 zone which seek to protect the amenity of residents

The proposed modifications will have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties and are therefore not supported. Refer to discussion below.

 

No. 7 Seaside Parade

(adjoining to the north)

 

Concerns are raised with privacy impacts from the proposed rear balcony at level 4

The concerns are addressed in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

 

Consultation with relevant public authorities:

No referrals to other public authorities are required

 

4.2    Section 79C Assessment

Randwick Local Environmental Plan

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

The proposed modification involves an increase in floorspace equating to 66 sqm and a Floor Space Ratio (FSR) of 0.75:1. The proposed modification does not comply with the maximum permissible floor space development standards within Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The non-compliance is summarized in the table below:

 

 

FSR

GFA (sqm)

Extent of variation from LEP 2012

Permissible FSR under LEP 2012

0.6:1

396

-

Approved Development

0.65:1

433

8% or 37 sqm

Proposed Modification

0.75:1

499 (increase of 66 sqm)

25% or 103 sqm

 

Applicant’s Justification

The planning report submitted with the application provided the following justification in relation to the FSR non-compliance:

 

‘Notwithstanding the increase in floorspace proposed, the decision of Lloyd J in Gann v Sutherland Shite Council (2008) NSWLEC 157 is applicable. It determined that Section 96 is a free standing provision and that further SEPP No. 1 Objection (Cl. 4.6 variation) is not required or appropriate. S99(3) calls up the provision of S.79C, the ultimate being whether the development is substantially the same.

 

Whilst the increased FSR is brought about by additional 66 sqm of floor space, the floor space is within the approved envelope of the building and does not visibly add to the bulk to the building being at the lower levels 2 & 3 or fully below existing ground level.”

 

Officer’s Assessment

The application is made pursuant to Section 96 of the EP&A Act and clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards is not required to justify the variation from the statutory control.

 

The approved development contains an undercroft area for a BBQ and patio at level 2 and an entertainment deck at level 3 which were excluded from the gross floor area (GFA) calculation in the assessment of the approved development. The proposed modification seeks to move the glass line at levels 2 and 3 to the east with a corresponding extension to the side walls at level 2 to provide all weather protection. As a consequence, the subject floorspace is now included in the calculation of GFA resulting in an increase in the FSR. However, the additional GFA is largely within the approved building envelope and will not contribute to the visible bulk of the building or result in any additional privacy or overshadowing impacts to the adjoining properties. The variation to the FSR control is therefore considered acceptable.

 

·          Clause 6.6 Foreshore building Line

For properties along the eastern side of Seaside Parade, Clause 6.6 of the RLEP 2012 prescribes the Foreshore Building Line that defines the boundary to the foreshore area within which development consent must not be granted for development other than that identified in sub-clause (2). The proposed relocated swimming pool is a permissible development in the foreshore area indentified in sub-clause (2), and satisfies all the following matters for consideration under sub-clause (3) in order for it to be acceptable in the foreshore area: 

 

(a)      the development will contribute to achieving the objectives for the zone in which the land is located, and

(b)      the appearance of any proposed structure, from both the waterway and adjacent foreshore areas, will be compatible with the surrounding area, and

(c)      the development will not cause environmental harm such as:

(i)  pollution or siltation of the waterway, or

(ii)  an adverse effect on surrounding uses, marine habitat, wetland areas, flora or fauna habitats, or

(iii)  an adverse effect on drainage patterns, and

(d)      the development will not cause congestion or generate conflicts between people using open space areas or the waterway, and

(e)      opportunities to provide continuous public access along the foreshore and to the waterway will not be compromised, and

(f)      any historic, scientific, cultural, social, archaeological, architectural, natural or aesthetic significance of the land on which the development is to be carried out and of surrounding land will be maintained, and

(g)      in the case of development for the alteration or rebuilding of an existing building wholly or partly in the foreshore area, the alteration or rebuilding will not have an adverse impact on the amenity or aesthetic appearance of the foreshore, and

(h)      sea level rise or change of flooding patterns as a result of climate change has been considered.

The proposed swimming pool will not give rise to any inconsistency or conflict with the above matters for consideration.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

The main concerns raised in the public submissions to the proposed modifications relate to amenity impacts from a reduction in privacy, additional overshadowing and view impacts. DCP 2013 contains objectives and controls in relation to these amenity requirements which are addressed, where relevant, for the proposed modifications at each level of the approved development.

 

Level 1

The relocation of the plant room to under the modified pool location will not have any adverse amenity or visual impacts as it will be setback 8.5m under the cantilevered section of the pool. The proposed relocation of the plant room is therefore considered acceptable.

 

Level 2

Relocation of the glass line and extended side walls

The proposed modification seeks to move the glass line 3.3m to the east with a corresponding extension to the side walls and a reduction in the size of the external BBQ and patio area. It is reasonable to expect that the relocation of the glass line will also result in the approved balustrade along the northern and southern edges being replaced with side walls for all weather protection. The height of the proposed side walls is 3m which complies with the Randwick LEP maximum wall height control. Given the proposed side walls are below existing ground level at the lower part of the site it is not considered there will be any significant adverse amenity impacts to the adjoining properties or additional bulk when viewed from the foreshore. The proposed modification in this regard is therefore considered acceptable.

 

Reconfiguration of internal floor area

The proposed modification to the internal floor layout and the additional excavation for the plant room and cellar are within the approved building envelope below existing ground level and will not be visible from adjoining properties. The proposed modification to the internal floor layout is therefore considered acceptable.

 

Relocated swimming pool

The proposed modification seeks to relocate the approved swimming pool and spa to the southern part of the property. Concerns have been raised by the landowner at No. 11 Seaside Parade (adjoining to the south) in relation to overshadowing impacts due to its elevated side wall above natural ground level. The swimming pool will be setback 1.2m from the southern side boundary which complies with the RDCP minimum 900mm setback control. The wall height ranges between 0.5 and 3m above existing ground level for a distance of 8m. As a consequence, the pool wall overshadows part of the rear lower yard area of No. 11 Seaside Parade. Given the steep nature of the slope the wall height of the swimming pool is considered reasonable. The overshadowing impacts are exacerbated by the east-west orientation of the site.  The additional shadow cast by the proposed pool is considered reasonable given the site constraints.

 

Concern has also been raised in relation to view loss to the north across the side boundary from No.11 Seaside Parade due to the location of the swimming pool adjacent to the southern boundary. However, the view impacts are considered minor in the context of extensive views retained to the east and south east as assessed for the original DA. These extensive views are shown in Photos 1 and 2 below. The proposed relocation of the pool is therefore considered acceptable in terms of view impacts.

 

Photo 1: View looking south-east obtained from the upper level east-facing deck at No. 11 Seaside Parade which will not be affected by the proposal.

 

Photo 2 : View looking east obtained from upper level east-facing deck at No. 11 Seaside Parade which will not be affected by the proposal.

 

Level 3

Balcony at the rear adjoining the guest bedroom and gym

 

Applicant’s Justification

The applicant’s planning report submitted with the application contends the balcony will provide better solar access for the dwelling.

 

Officer’s Assessment

DCP 2013 states that overlooking or cross viewing to the neighbouring dwellings must be minimised to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.  The proposed balcony is 2.58m deep and extends the full width of the elevation adjoining the guest bedroom and gym. The proposed balcony will extend eastwards over level 2 approximately to the alignment of the previously proposed pergola which was deleted by condition. The proposed balcony will result in additional overlooking impacts to adjoining properties. Furthermore, it will extend beyond the approved building alignment and result in an adverse visual impact on the foreshore. The proposed balcony is therefore not supported.

 

Plant and store room

Additional excavation is proposed to provide a plant room and store on the western side of the stairwell. The additional floor area will be contained within the approved building envelope and results in no amenity impact to the adjoining properties. The proposed plant and store room is acceptable.

 

Level 4

Balcony at the rear adjoining the living and dining rooms

 

Applicant’s Justification

The applicant’s planning report submitted with the application contends that the size of the approved balcony as restricted by a condition of the development consent is insufficient to enable the provision of outdoor furniture and unsuitable for the main living space of the dwelling.

 

The applicant’s planning report also contends that the assessment of view impacts to No. 11 Seaside Parade as previously assessed by council is not consistent with the view impact principles established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity v Warringah given the view loss from the upper level deck at No.11 Seaside Parade is across a side boundary and offset by views retained in other locations on the property. The applicant’s planning report also makes the point that view impacts are not a result of any non-compliance with the Council’s controls and the site at No. 11 Seaside Parade is likely to be redeveloped in the near future.

 

Officer’s Assessment

A condition was imposed on the approved development requiring a reduction in the depth of the balcony by 2m at the rear adjoining the living and dining rooms to minimise privacy and view impacts to adjoining properties. The current condition on the approval development resulted in a small balcony of 900mm wide adjoining the dining area. The privacy and view impacts are considered below.

 

Privacy Impacts

DCP 2013 seeks to maintain reasonable levels of privacy to adjoining properties.  This can be achieved by a skilful design and/or the installation of fixed privacy screens. In this circumstance the balcony design is not appropriate as it will extend the rear alignment of the building, and the proposed fixed privacy screens along the northern and southern edge of the balcony will add visual bulk and have an adverse impact on the scenic qualities of the foreshore. The proposed balcony is therefore not supported.

 

View Impacts

DCP 2013 seeks to acknowledge the value of views to significant ocean views and ensure development is sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings.

 

The potential view impacts are considered from the upper level main deck of the adjoining property at No.11 Seaside Parade to Wedding Cake Island to the north.

 

The NSW Land and Environment Court has developed a planning principle relating to view sharing based on the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

Whilst it is noted that the view impacts from No. 11 Seaside Parade to Wedding Cake Island are across a side boundary, nevertheless, it is considered appropriate to minimise those impacts, where possible. The future redevelopment of No.11 Seaside Parade is not a matter for consideration as no development application has been lodged with council at the time of writing.

 

Importantly, the site is contained within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and Foreshore Area under Clause 6.7 of the LEP 2012. The objectives of clause 6.7 seek to protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore and ensure development does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.  The proposed extension to the balcony would extend beyond the rear building alignment and result in additional bulk and an adverse visual impact on the foreshore. The proposed balcony would compromise the objectives of clause 6.7 of LEP 2012 and is therefore not supported.

 

Furthermore, it is considered that the approved 900mm wide balcony will retain sufficient amenity for future occupants from the main living space of the dwelling.

 

Level 5

Balcony at the rear to master bedroom and bedroom 2

Applicant’s Justification

The applicant’s planning report submitted with the application contends that the depth of the balcony adjoining both the master bedroom and bedroom 2 should be 1.2m to allow bi-fold doors to open halfway across and leave space for maintenance and circulation.

 

The planning report also contends the view impacts set out in the Council officer’s planning report are not relevant given the balcony at level 5 is more than one storey above the rear main deck of No.11 Seaside Parade. 

 

Officer’s Assessment

A condition was imposed on the approved development requiring a reduction in the width of the balcony at the rear by 600mm to minimise privacy and view impacts to adjoining properties. This resulted in a small balcony of 400mm wide adjoining the master bedroom and no balcony adjoining bedroom 2.

 

It is considered the proposed balcony will result in additional privacy impacts to the adjoining properties. Whilst the view loss impacts are not likely to be significant, the proposed balcony will have an adverse visual impact on the scenic quality of the foreshore and is inconsistent with the objectives of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Clause 6.7 LEP 2012. The proposed balcony is therefore not supported.

 

Balcony at the front to bedroom 3

A condition was imposed on the approved development requiring the deletion of the balcony at the street front and over the car hoist. The reasoning for the deletion of this balcony relates to the potential privacy impacts on adjoining properties. The proposed balcony will primarily overlook the street. The planter box at its perimeter will minimise potential privacy impacts to No. 7 Seaside Parade. The potential privacy impact to No.11 Seaside Parade will be negligible due to distance separation. Additionally, the balcony will be lined to a bedroom which has a less intensive use than, for example, a living room and will, therefore, not be conclusive for overlooking. It is also noted that there are a number of other properties in the street which have balconies/decks which provide casual surveillance of the street.  The balcony above the adjoining bedroom 3 is therefore supported.

 

Step in north-east corner wall

The approved step in the north-east corner is proposed to be removed to simplify the alignment of the wall. The proposed modification will not have any significant additional impact on the adjoining property to the north or view impacts from the foreshore given it relates to a minor building element. The proposed modification is therefore supported.

Southern side boundary setback

The approved development is for a 1.8m side setback to the ensuite and walk in robe at the southern boundary. The proposed modification seeks to reduce the setback by 300mm to 1.5m. The section of wall is 7m in length. The proposed modification complies with Council’s side setback controls which are minimum of 1.5m at the upper levels. The proposed reduction will not have any significant adverse amenity impact on the adjoining property to the south at No.11 Seaside Parade. The proposed modification is therefore acceptable.

 

Modification to the streetfront elevation

The proposed modification includes new window openings and louvres at the front façade. The changes to the façade will not significantly alter the appearance of the approved building and are therefore supported.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications to the approved dwelling house has been assessed against the relevant requirements in RLEP 2012 and Council’s Comprehensive DCP 2013 and Section 79C of the EP&A Act, 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications will result in substantially the same development as that previously approved. However, the proposed balconies at the rear of levels 3, 4 and 5 will have an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties due to increased opportunities for overlooking and view impacts. The proposed rear balconies will also add additional bulk beyond the approved rear building alignment and detract from the scenic qualities of the foreshore and are therefore not supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify DA/303/2013 by relocation of swimming pool adjacent to southern boundary, alterations to front facade (west), extension of balconies on levels 4 and 5, addition of planter on level 4, extension of floor area to east on level three, addition of plant room on level 2, alterations to landscaping, internal changes and repositioning of skylight for No. 9 Seaside Parade South Coogee, in the following manner:

 

           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

Dated

Received by Council

DA2002B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2003B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2004C

MPR

7/11/13

7/11/13

DA2005B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2006B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2007B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2008C

MPR

7/11/13

7/11/13

DA2009B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2010B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2011B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2012B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2013B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

DA2014B

MPR

3/10/13

4/10/13

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

483625S

21 May 2013

22 May 2013

 

as amended by the following Section 96 plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

S96.2002 Roof Site Plan

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2003C Level 5 Plan

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2004C Level 4 Plan

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2005C Level 3 Plan

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2006C Level 2 Plan

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2007C Level 1 Plan

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2008C Section A

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2010C West Elevation

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2011C East Elevation

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2012C North elevation

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

S96.2013C South Elevation

JPRA

14/7/2014

13/8/2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

483625S

21 May 2013

22 May 2013

 

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:

 

Amend Condition No. 2 as follows:

 

·      Delete Condition 2 (ii)

 

·      Replace Condition 2 (iii) with the following amended wording:

The deck at the rear of level 4 adjoining the dining area must be reduced by a depth of 2.5m to a maximum depth of 900mm and a maximum width of 4.7m. The deck adjoining the living area is to be deleted and the proposed bi-fold doors adjacent to the dining area, marked 4W06, shall be replaced with the openings approved for this room under Development Consent DA/303/2013. Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

·      Replace Condition 2 (iv) with the following amended wording:

The deck at the rear of level 5 adjoining the master bedroom must be reduced by a depth of 600mm to a maximum depth of 400mm and a maximum width of 2.9m. The deck adjoining bedroom 2 is to be deleted and the proposed bi-fold doors adjacent to bedroom 2, marked 5W09, shall be replaced with the openings for this room approved under Development Consent DA/303/2013. Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

·      Replace Condition 2 (v) with the following amended wording:

The proposed extended deck at the rear of level 3 is to be deleted and replaced with a non-trafficable deck. Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            14 October 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D89/14

 

 

Subject:                  205 Oberon Street, Coogee
(DA/500/2010/C)

Folder No:                   DA/500/2010/C

Author:                   Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                              Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the balustrade design for front & rear balconies, changes to window/door openings on elevations, new wall adjacent to rear boundary and on part of the eastern side boundary

                                              Original consent: Alterations and additions to convert the existing dwelling into two dwelling units

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr G Lay

Owner:                        Mr G Lay and Ms L M De Aboitiz

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview28519.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is seeking to modify the original consent, which was determined at the Planning Committee Meeting on 8 March 2011 for alterations and additions to convert the existing dwelling into two dwelling units, including extension of the ground and lower ground floor levels, new first floor level, and associated strata subdivision into two lots.

 

Proposal

The proposal consists of alterations to balustrade design and changes to various openings as stated below:

 

1.  Lower Ground:

·      new masonary balustrade approximately 1m to 1.8m high on the northern elevation of the rear balcony,

·      2m high masonary fence on the eastern boundary, and

·      changes to east elevation windows from sliding to awning windows;

 

2.  Ground Floor:

·      modify the size of living area window and new louvered translucent glass laundry window on the western elevation,

·      reconfigure window panel configuration on the eastern elevation, and

·      new balustrade design wrapping rear balcony on the northern and eastern elevations, and

·      500mm wide wall enclosing rear balcony on the eastern elevation; and

 

3.  First Floor:

·      additional louvered fixed window on the eastern elevation,

·      new masonary balustrade on the front balcony,

·      new masonary balustrade wrapping the rear balcony on the western and northern elevations, and

·      modify the size of sliding door and window on the northern elevation. 

 

Site inspection established that the proposed works have been completed prior to the lodgement of this application. Therefore, 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 has been raised subject to planning assessment.

 

Site

The site is located on the northern side of Oberon St. It has land size of 270.8m2 with street frontage of 9.245m and a depth of 28.955m. The land falls away from the street quite steeply on a northerly aspect. The subject property is situated adjacent to 2/3 storey single dwelling on the western side and 3/4 storey residential flat buildings on the eastern and northern sides. The area in general is characterised by larger apartment buildings reflecting R3 Medium Density Residential zoning.

Aerial View of subject site and neighbouring properties

 

Submissions

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

 

Key Issues

 

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:

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development and the proposed changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which consent was granted for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The modification consists of alterations to design of balustrades, various openings and boundary walls. No substantial changes are involved in the built form and envelope of the approved development, thus the works remain consistent with the original consent. 

 

S.79C Assessment

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

 

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 not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape and locality while providing for the housing needs within a medium density residential environment and protecting the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring 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 (RCDCP) 2013

Fencing (Section C1 – sub-section 7.3)

Part of the eastern boundary fence towards the rear north-eastern corner has been built with 2m high masonry wall above the approved lower ground level of 52.72 (see Figure 1). RCDCP 2013 controls for side and rear fencing state that the maximum height of side, rear or common boundary fence is limited to 1800mm and for sloping sites, and the fence must be stepped following the topography of the land with each step not exceeding 2200mm. Non-compliance to the height of the side fence is considered acceptable due to the natural topography of the land and is not anticipated to create any further overshadowing to the rear yard of adjoining property due to the localised nature of the non-compliance near the south-eastern corner. RCDCP 2013 control for fencing also stipulates that in the scenario where there is a significant level difference between the subject and adjoining allotments, the fencing height will be considered on merit. The modification is therefore regarded appropriate in its context and therefore satisfies the requirements of the DCP.      

 

Balustrading  (Section C1 – sub-section 4.5)

Modification to balustrade design on the lower ground level has resulted in the installation of a solid masonry balustrade along the northern edge of the rear balcony adjoining the living/dining room on the lower ground floor. A portion of this new masonry balustrade has a maximum height of 1.8m from the approved lower ground floor level of RL52.72 (Figure 3 below shows this 1.8m high balustrade fro the living room). The RCDCP 2013 controls for building façade suggest that the detailing of balustrades must reflect the type and location of balconies. A merit assessment of the proposed balustrade indicates that it will not result in any adverse impacts on the amenity of adjoining property to the north at No. 157 Brook Street for the following reasons:

 

·         The 1.8m high portion of the balustrade will be localised to a small section of the rear balcony to provide privacy to the adjoining living room area of the approved  development

 

·         The subject balustrade will not result in any overshadowing impacts on the adjoining northern neighbour at No 157 Brook Street as the wall is located to the south of this adjoining development.

 

·         The subject balustrade will enhance privacy between the approved development and the adjoining northern neighbour at No 157 Brook Street being an existing residential flat building with large rear yard.

 

·         The subject balustrade will not be overbearing in visual bulk and scale as it will be setback by approximately 1m from the common boundary with the the adjoining northern neighbour at No 157 Brook Street. 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Eastern elevation of subject site rear yard (left) and 157 Brook St rear yard (right)

 

Visual Privacy (Section C1 – sub-section 5.3)

Although the modified window to the living area on the ground floor (refer to Figure 2) could allow potential overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwelling on the western side (203 Oberon Street), it is regarded as suitable in maintaining reasonable levels of privacy. The sill height of the modified window retains the same sill height of the approved window. Privacy impact from the living area window in relation to the adjoining property has been comprehensively addressed in the original determination and was considered acceptable. Existing trees at the rear yard of adjoining property on the west will screen any direct overlooking or cross-viewing between the neighbouring dwellings.

 

Modification to north facing sliding door on the first floor level, including the reduction of door size and the increase of fixed window area, will not pose any adverse privacy impacts to the adjoining properties on the northern side. Apart from having sufficient distance to the balcony of 157 Brook Street, further increase in the height of screening device is proposed by amending the design of balustrade to avoid direct overlooking into private open space of the adjoining property (refer to Figure 3). 

 

Due to the orientation of the lower ground balcony that will face directly into the rear yard of adjoining property at 157 Brook Street, the increased height of balustrade to 1.8m in part is regarded as acceptable to maintain reasonable levels of privacy between the properties.

 

No additional visual privacy impact is anticipated from these modifications and they are considered appropriate in satisfying the requirements of the DCP.

 

 

Figure 2: View of modified window to the living area on the ground floor level

 

 

 

Figure 3: View from modified north facing sliding door on the first floor level

 

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 the approved development including works already completed is considered ancillary in nature to that approved development under the original consent and will not result in any adverse impacts on the privacy of adjoining properties. The application, therefore, is recommended for approval subject to attached conditions of consent.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/500/2010/C for permission to modify the approved development by altering the balustrade design for front & rear balconies, changing the window/door openings on western eastern and northern elevations, adding new wall adjacent to rear boundary and on part of the eastern side boundary, at No. 205 Oberon Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

A.        Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA01 to DA14 and stamped received by Council on 11 February 2011, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended  by the

 

·       Section 96 ‘A’ plans numbered S9601 – S9614, Issue S96, dated 23/10/12 and received by Council on 24 October 2012

 

·       Section 96 ‘B’ plans numbered S9601 – S9614, Issue A, dated 26/09/13 and received by Council on 27 September 2013

 

·       Section 96 ‘C’ plans numbered 01 – 06, dated 14/08/2014 and received by Council on 15 August 2014 and BASIX certificate no. A85092_04, issued on 15 August 2014 and received by Council on 15 August 2014

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            14 October 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D90/14

 

 

Subject:                  97 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/234/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/234/2014

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 3/part 4 residential flat building containing 11 units with 2 levels of basement car parking for 18 vehicles, landscaping and associated works at the above site.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Michaul Holdings Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Ms P Tscherner and Mr P Hillary

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview25577.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee based on a cost of works exceeding $2 million.

 


Proposal

 

An application has been received for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 3/part 4 residential flat building containing 11 units with 2 levels of basement car parking for 18 vehicles, landscaping and associated works at the above site. The proposal comprises the following:

 

Level G-03

·      1 x 3 bedroom unit;

·      Stair access.

Level G-02

·      1 x 3 bedroom unit;

·      Car parking for 8 vehicles (including 2 x disabled parking);

·      Bicycle storage (6 bicycles);

·      Waste room;

·      Plant room;

·      Employee bathroom;

·      Waiting bay and traffic signal location;

·      Stair and lift access.

Level G-01

·      2 x 3 bedroom units;

·      Car parking for 10 vehicles (including 1 x disabled parking);

·      Waiting bay and traffic signal location;

·      Stair and lift access.

Level G

·      3 x 3 bedroom units

·      1 x 2 bedroom unit;

·      Stair and lift access.

Level 1

·      2 x 3 bedroom units;

·      Lobby;

·      Stair and lift access.

Level 2

·      1 x 3 bedroom unit;

·      Lobby;

·      Stair and lift access.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 25 July 2014 to address issues raised by Council concerns in relation to privacy and the proposed car stackers, and issues raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. 

 

The amended plan include the following changes:

 

·      Provide a mechanical car lift which allows for a significant reduction in ramp length and also reduces the extent of the basement parking levels.

·      Reduce height of lifttower and stairs by inverting the lift and stairs making this component compliant with the RLEP maximum building height standard

·      Increased rear setback from 5.036m to 8.2m

·      Increased deep soil from 30% to 47% of site area

·      Additional lowering of external wall height to predminantly to less than 10.5m

·      Provide direct acces to open space from living area for all 11 dwelling units

·      Remove slab between lowered level units to create a void open to the sky

·      Use fire stair to provide natural light and ventilation

·      Provide additional windows to kitchen areas

·      Provide additional eave over external corridor

 

The applicant’s amended SEE aadvises that the overall effect of these amendments is to:

 

Site

The site is located on the eastern side of Carrington Road, Coogee approximately 50m south of its intersection with Marcel Avenue.

 

The site is irregular in shape with a 12.495m frontage to Carrington Road, an irregular rear boundary of approximately 37m, northern and southern side boundary depths of 54m and 60.55m respectively and a total site area of 1240m².

 

The land slopes steeply downward from the street some 10m over the entire length of the site in addition to a similar cross fall from northwest to southeast.

 

Existing on the land is a single dwelling house and swimming pool. The site also contains a series of steps, retaining walls, rock outcrops; planter boxes

and a tank at the rear of the site. Substantial vegetation including a number of existing Gum trees also exist at the rear of the site.

 

To the north and south the site is adjoined by existing residential flat buildings and to the east by a substantial dwelling house at No. 10 Richard Avenue.

 

The locality is occupied predominantly by residential flat developments of older tenure in addition to dwelling houses.

 

1. The existing building

2. Adjoining flat building to south


 

3. Flat building to the north

4. Rear yard of subject site

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development on 30 April to 14 May 2014 for the original application and on 3 September to 17 September 2014 for the amended proposal in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

Units 3 and 4/95; Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6/99 Carrington Road, Coogee

Issue

Comment

Carrington Road Traffic Issue, Access to the Road, Incident Rate and Parking Spill over.

See engineering services comments.

Elevator (Car Hoist) Noise

Car lifts have been considered viable solutions in a number of different LGAs for some time particularly City of Sydney and within residential contexts. Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that the amenity of surrounding residents will be protected.

Non-compliant Open Space and FSR

Amended plans have been submitted documenting compliant open space provision including 47% of deep soil planting. FSR continues to be compliant as per plans originally lodged.

Excessive Overshadowing

See Solar Access and Overshadowing section of Key Issues.

Impact on the streetscape

The proposed development relates reasonably to adjoining developments and is consistent with the desired future character of this area undergoing transition.

Bulk of property, areas approved as terraces may later be converted to living areas

Any such application would be dealt with on its merits, although unlikely given the maximum FSR evident in the current design.

Noise Impacts of car parking, steep driveway excessive breaking

Driveways have been replaced with a car lift which has been assessed as acceptable by the engineering services unit.

Privacy impact due to raised windows on proposed development

See Visual and Acoustic Privacy section of Key Issues.

Drainage Issues may result in overflow onto property at 99 Carrington Road, Coogee

A stormwater design ensuring satisfactory impacts on adjoining properties is a conditional requirement in the recommendation.

Concerns over the safety of the structure of the building at 99 Carrington Road

Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure that the proposed development will not have adverse impacts on surrounding developments.

Parking problems likely

The proposal has been assessed as acceptable by the engineering services unit.

Loss of natural light, outlook to existing greenery

The proposal has been amended to provide a greater setback to the rear of the property and the setback of between 2m – 9.8m to the southern boundary is on average well in excess of minimum requirement under the DCP.

 

The view of the existing greenery comprises vegetation in the subject site as well as neighbouring properties. In terms of view sharing principles established in Tenacity v Warringah Council, these are considered typical district views and are not iconic or significant in value occurring across side boundaries, which a compliant development, such as that proposed, would unavoidably impact upon.

Loss of trees at the rear 3 Palms and 4 mature Gumtrees

The proposed development has been setback additionally from the rear boundary approximately 3m to protect as much existing vegetation as possible. This aspect has been assessed by Council’s Landscape Officer as acceptable.

Potential loss of grassed area and Palm Tree at 99 Carrington Road

Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to ensure the protection of vegetation including the Palm tree on 99 Carrington Road.

Vast increase in population and associated rubbish

The proposal is consistent with the planning objectives identified for the locality. It will generate a population commensurate with a compliant building envelope.

Significant inconvenience during construction

Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation to minimise disturbance during construction of the proposed development.

Excessive height of the proposed development

The majority of the proposed development is well under the maximum allowable external wall height of 10.5 m and the entire development is compliant with the 12m height limit applicable to the land. There are some localised breaches in the wall height control however these have been assessed and found to be acceptable in the key issues section below.

Noise concerns in relation to the noise associated with the lift and plant rooms

Standard conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that noise levels are maintained to acceptable levels.

Natural birdlife in the area will be adversely affected by the proposed development.

There is no evidence to support this claim. Whilst there is some removal of vegetation on the site, the proposed replacement planting will provide new opportunities for wildlife habitat. Further, 3 significant trees are being retained in the rear yard that currently provides a food and habitat source for native fauna.

“Green” views across the valley will be adversely affected.

The proposal is consistent with the planning controls identified for the locality and the building has been setback additionally from the rear and southern boundary to retain existing vegetation and allow for additional planting in accordance with the proposed landscape plan.

·         Excessive site coverage

The proposal complies with all relevant setback requirements of the RDCP 2013 and, in particular, exceeds the rear setback controls significantly. Combined with a compliant building height and density, the proposal will generate a footprint that is commensurate with a compliant building envelope such as that proposed. 

 

Key Issues

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

The maximum height allowable under clause 4.3 (2) of the RLEP in respect of the subject site is 12m.

 

After detailed assessment, it was evident that the lift tower and stair access proximate to the southern boundary exceeded the 12m height limit. Amended plans have been submitted inverting the lift and stair layout and deleting the lift access to the uppermost level. This remains BCA compliant and ensures that the entire development remains under the maximum allowable height limit.

 

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.

 

For development where the maximum height of buildings is 12m, the maximum external wall height is 10.5m.

 

Due to the significant north south cross fall in addition to the substantial east west cross fall, parts of the southern portion of the building include external wall heights which exceed the limit to a maximum of 11.4m. Notwithstanding the numerical departure, the proposal is considered reasonable in this regard having regard to the following:

·         The plans have been amended on several occasions since original submission resulting in height reductions and additional setbacks from the southern boundary to maximize the ingress of direct sunlight and natural light to the southern property. The setbacks of the building to this boundary range from 2m -9.8m which is well above the minimum 2m required in this instance.

·         The proposal is compliant with the maximum height of buildings standard of 12m under the RLEP indicative of a built form of acceptable height and scale. 

·         The proposed development provides a flat roof design to minimize associated additional height with a pitched roof form and is compatible with the streetscape.

·         Ceiling heights are compliant and not excessive.

·         The proposed development is compliant with the maximum FSR indicative of a development of acceptable bulk and scale.

·         Having regard to the natural lay of the land in the immediate locality and the established subdivision plan in the locality, any compliant form of development will have substantial shadow impacts on properties to the south which are not exacerbated in this instance as the overall height is compliant with the 12m limitation under the RLEP.

·         The design incorporates measures which ensure reasonable levels of privacy between developments including the provision of a range of screening devices, suitable off-setting of living areas to adjoining properties, combined with compliant and generous buildings setbacks

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing

The objectives of the DCP in this regard are:

·         To ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximises solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces, and is encouraged to all other areas of the development.

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

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

 

The proposed development satisfies the requirement of providing compliant sunlight access to 9 of the 11 dwellings within the development in respect of living areas and private open space areas.

 

However, due to the significant slope of the land and the east west orientation of allotments in this section of Carrington Road, the proposal does not comply with the solar access requirements for surrounding development in respect of the property to the south at No.99 Carrington Road. The controls are:

 

i) Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (mid-winter).

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

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

 

Despite the departure, the proposed development is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·         The proposal is fully compliant with the maximum height of buildings and FSR controls under the RLEP which demonstrates a development of acceptable bulk, scale and height. The development also achieves compliance with the side setback controls and a majority of the external walls will be below than the maximum 10.5m external wall height control. Based upon these key indicators of building envelope on the site, the impact proposed is as anticipated by the planning controls. Accordingly, the proposed overshadowing impact on the adjoining southern property at No 99 Carrington Road is not considered unreasonable and does not arise out of an unreasonably large or badly designed development.

·         The subdivision pattern in the immediate locality is one of allotments of east west orientation on sites which fall both from west to east and north to south. As such, any form of compliant development will result in unavoidable non-compliant shadow impacts on properties to the south, similar to the impacts the adjoining development to the south has on its southern neighbour.

·         The proposal incorporates a range of setbacks to the southern boundary which range from 2m – 9.8m compliant with the DCP controls, representing a significant effort on the part of the applicant’s consultants to minimize adverse impacts.

·         Even though the rear boundary of the subject site extends further east than that of the adjoining property to the south, a rear setback above that required, in this case will still result in sunlight impacts on the southern neighbour. These impacts, associated with a reasonable form of development such as that proposed, are unavoidable.

 

In the circumstances the proposed development achieves reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring properties and the public domain and provides significant access to natural daylight to the most affected property to the south.

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The objectives of the DCP in relation privacy area:

 

Visual Privacy

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

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

 

Acoustic Privacy

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

·         To ensure dwellings are designed so that its occupants enjoy acoustic privacy, whilst maintaining the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties.

·         To ensure dwellings are designed to minimise impacts from significant exterior noise sources such as arterial roads, flight paths, industries and ports.

·         To design buildings with adequate separation within the development and from  adjoining properties

 

The proposal satisfies the objectives in relation to visual privacy by the inclusion of the following measures:

 

·         The general orientation of the living areas of units (including terrace areas) is to the front and rear of the site rather than to side boundaries. The upper level terraces are provided with planter boxes which will add to the screening of these areas.

·         Towards the western Carrington Road section of the development where the proposed development sits between the existing adjoining buildings, to the north, mainly bedrooms are located on this façade. Where there are living areas to this façade, level differences between floors and window openings and reasonable setbacks of approximately 4m will ensure reasonable mutual levels of privacy.

·         Planter boxes to the northern facades of terrace areas will preclude the overlooking of lower levels on the adjoining residential flat development.

·         To the southern boundary, the building is setback substantially to living and terrace areas and fixed Louvre screening is off set in relation to window openings on the adjoining residential flat building. 

·         Terrace areas with the ability to allow for a southern outlook form the proposed development are setback a minimum of 7m or greater from the boundary.

 

Furthermore, conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure additional privacy measures including:

 

·         Provision of a privacy screen to the northern edge of the terrace area of the uppermost unit 2.01 to mitigate overlooking into No. 95 Carrington

·         On the southern façade of the terrace to unit 2.01, provision of an additional planter box area to minimize the overlooking capacity to the window openings on the adjoining residential flat development at No. 99 Carrington Road.

·         Provision of a privacy screen and planter box on the northern edge of the terrace area to unit G.01 to provide reasonable mutual levels of privacy between developments.

 

In regards to acoustic privacy, the terraces associated with the 2 uppermost levels, whilst generous in size, are only associated with single units. Given the generous setbacks of these areas to both boundaries, they are not envisaged to be sources of excessive noise.

 

With respect to the car lift and passenger lift facility, conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure that noise generated from these sources is compliant with the relevant legislation.

 

The proposal reasonably satisfies the requirements of the DCP in respect of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Car Parking and Car hoist

The proposal has been amended from the original inclusion of a long driveway along the northern boundary to 2 levels of parking. Due to gradient difficulties this scheme was abandoned in favor of a car hoist to the parking levels.

 

The engineering services unit has made the following comments in this regard:

 

Parking Layout

The vehicular access driveways, internal circulation ramps and the carpark areas, (including, but not limited to, the ramp grades, carpark layout and height clearances) are to be in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

Car Hoist

The vehicle access was originally proposed as a long driveway, however to address Design Review Panel concerns this was replaced by a car hoist system to increase the rear setback of the development. Car hoist systems are generally not favoured by Development Engineering due to potential issues with on-going maintenance and waiting times, however in recognition of the sites topographical constraints and Design Review Panel concerns a car hoist system was deemed acceptable in principle in this instance

 

As a car-hoist system fronting such a busy road is unprecedented within Randwick LGA (previous approvals related to rear dead end lanes only), input was sought from Randwick Council’s Traffic Engineers in an attempt to establish standards for the subject proposal and precedents for possible similar future developments.

 

Council’s Traffic Engineers had no objection in principle to the car hoist but requested a waiting bay be provided within the site to allow vehicles to wait within the site if another vehicle a vehicle is coming up the car hoist. The car in the hoist will then be able to satisfactorily exit the site by passing the other vehicle within the property.

 

These requirements were forwarded to the applicant and amended plans were received however the waiting bay proposal that was submitted was located across the site frontage and would have required unnatural vehicle movements. It was not deemed acceptable by Development Engineering or the planning officer. The applicant argued that it was not possible to provide the waiting bay to the Traffic Engineer’s requirements due the site narrowing significantly at the front property boundary creating severe geometric constraints (the site is only 12.5m wide at the front property boundary).

 

The only alternative option available was to have a widened driveway crossing on Council property and utilise this as part of the waiting/passing bay arrangements. This option was discussed with Council Traffic Engineers who indicated that it would not support such an arrangement due to the possibility of vehicles blocking the footpath for pedestrians while waiting for vehicles in the hoist. They were also concerned about establishing an undesirable precedent with this option.

 

In examining the potential for conflict Development Engineering notes the traffic and parking assessment which has calculated waiting times for the car hoist and probability of vehicle conflict.

 

 It has determined that there should no conflict 97% of the time and when combined with the probability of pedestrians being on the footpath at the same time as the vehicle conflict the probability of vehicles physically blocking pedestrians is very low.

 

It is also important to note that vehicles should not be required to reverse out onto Carrington Road with this option. At most vehicles will be momentarily delayed on the 5.5m wide council crossing while they wait for a car to exit the hoist and the site. This stretch of Carrington Road has been identified as a black spot due to vehicles speeding so the potential for vehicles to reverse onto Carrington road is considered a critical safety aspect.

 

In summary, it is Development Engineering’s preference that the requirements of Council’s Traffic Engineers be fully met in this regard. It is apparent however due to the front of the site’s geometric constraints this will be difficult to achieve with the current proposal. The car hoist was a late addition to the proposed development and it is apparent its integration has been restricted by a 90% completed design. It would require a full re-design of the front of the building to fully address the concerns of the Traffic Engineer which may then create planning issues

 

It is considered a 5.5m wide driveway which then narrows internally within the site prior to entering the car hoist will address the critical aspects of the Traffic Engineer’s concerns but does not represent the preferred outcome.

 

Conditions relating to this chosen option have been included in this report.

 

Given the constraints of the site, the inclusion of the car hoist and associated entry and exit function is supported on this occasion.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone, reasonably compliant with the applicable planning controls and will have sustainable impacts on surrounding properties. The proposal has also been skillfully design and will result in an architecturally sound design in the streetscape and locality as attested to in the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel’s comments and reviewed in the DA Compliance Report.

 

Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposed development will not generate unreasonable adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties including visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.  Also, when considered on balance with resultant environmental impacts, it will result in a generally positive development outcome for the site, the streetscape and surrounds.

 

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. 234/2014 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 3/part 4 residential flat building containing 11 units with 2 levels of basement car parking for 18 vehicles, landscaping and associated works at No. 97 Carrington Road, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Nonstandard conditions

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

 

a.   A privacy screen having a height of a) 1.5m above floor level must be provided to northern edge of unit 2.01.  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.   A planter box having a minimum height of 600mm and a minimum width of 1.5m is to be provided to the southern edge of the terrace area to unit 2.01. Planting in this planter box is to similar to planting shown to the northern and eastern boundaries of this terrace.

c.   A planter box to a minimum height of 600mm and a minimum width of 1m is to be provided to the northern edge of the terrace area to unit G.01. Planting in this planter box is to be similar to planting to planting shown in relation to unit 2.01.

d.   A privacy screen having a height of 1.5m above floor level is to be provided to the southern edge of the planter box required by condition 2c. 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 in a suitable frame.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 97 Carrington Road, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                            14 October 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D91/14

 

 

Subject:                  30 Blenheim Street, Randwick (DA167/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/167/2014

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structure, construction of four levels mixed use development comprising ground and first floor health services with serviced apartments above, basement carparking for 7 vehicles with associated works

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Topland Investment Holding Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Topland Investment Holding Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview28941.png

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to a Council meeting as the cost of works is valued over $2m.

Proposal

 

The proposed development as amended is for a development over four levels (originally five) comprising basement level containing seven parking spaces includive of a disabled parking space, ground level containing a medical reception and office area, Level 1 containing eight consulting rooms and Levels 2 and 3 containing twelve  serviced apartments. The development also provides deep soil areas at the High Street and Blenheim Street frontages.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 19 Augutst 2014 to address issues raised by Council in relation to privacy and the proposed car stackers, and issues raised by the SEPP 65 Design Review Panel. 

 

The main changes made to the application include:

 

·      Deletion of the top level changing from a five storey building to a four storey building. The original height exceeded the 15m maximum building height standard under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the deletion of the top mezzanine level now results in compliance with the maximum permitted under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2013 (RLEP).

 

·      Change in the residential component from twelve boarding rooms over the three top levels (Levels 2, 3 & 4) to twelve serviced apartments over two upper levels (Levels 2 & 3). This change to serviced apartments is driven by the use of the residential component for shorter periods of stay associated with rehabilitation, visiting family and specialists than the required 3 month minimum period of stay akin to Boarding houses.

 

·      Addition of two consulting rooms at Level 1, now totaling eight, replacing the previous boarding house manager’s room and common room.

 

·      Lowering of the ground level so that it is now closer to ground level at the High Street footpath level, as per Design Review Panel advice and in accordance with the objectives under Part E2 Block 2 controls of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP). These objectives seek to ensure permeability and connectivity of ground level between the development and street level. The lower ground level has been achieved by reducing the ramp grades to the bare minimum and the loss of one parking space (see Traffic assessment report and addendum submitted with the application).

 

·      Addendum to the traffic report iterating the following justifications for the shortfall in parking:

 

Site constraints: the single lot width does not allow for vehicles to ramp down to another level in so far as vehicle turning circles down to an additional basement level would be inpractical and non-compliant

Car stackers will not result in any additional parking provided on site

There is a clear synergy between the proposed medical and rehabilitation facility with the Prince of Wales Hospital immediately opposite the site

The sites close proximity to extensive public transport services that will improve with the future introduction of light-rail

An emphasis on the demand management whereby the applicant is willing to prepare an Operational Management Plan (OMP) that ensures there are restrictions on the number of consulting rooms (surgeries) in use at any one time and appointments only approach.

Reference to a previous Medical Centre development at Silver Street identified ample unused public parking in the locality.

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of High Street extending through to the southern side of Blenheim Street between Clara Street and Botany Street, Randwick – see aerial photo on cover page.  The site has a frontage width of 12.19m, a side boundary depth of 40.21m and has an overall site area of 490.16m². 

 

The site currently contains a single storey building designed and presenting as a dwelling fronting Blenheim Street which over a lengthy period of time and until recently has been used for the purposes of health consulting rooms. The site provides five parking spaces at the rear facing High street – see photos below.

 

Neighbouring the property to the east and west are four storey walk up flat buildings with ground level parking. The built form context in Blenheim Street and along this side of High Street is characterised by 3 and 4 storey residential flat buildings and some single storey detached dwelling houses. The opposite side of High Street and further afield the locality contains a predominance of medical facilities with the most notable being the Prince of Wales Hospital directly opposite the site.

 

Photo 1: Subject site in centre and adjoining to the right (east) and left (west) are four storey walk up flat buildings.

 

 

Photo 2: Existing structure fronting Blenheim Street

Photo 3: Existing structure fronting High Street

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Submissions received as a result of the notification process were received from the following properties whose issues have been addressed in the table below and throughout the executive summary report and DA compliance report:

             

·      Units 2, 3, 5 /28 Blenheim Street

·      3 Blenheim Street

·      5 Blenheim Street

·      29 Blenheim Street

 

Issue

Comment

Privacy and noise:

Adverse impact from west facing balconies and terrace

The Level 2 and 3 balconies attached to residential rooms have been deleted from the development.

 

The Level 1 terrace facing west remains, however it is considered that the privacy of neighbouring apartments opposite will not be significantly affected for the following reasons:

·      Privacy screens are now located opposite the neighbour’s windows restricting sightlines

·      The terrace is associated with the use of the medical consulting rooms which will operate within normal business hours

·      Conditioned design requirements for external louvres

Front setbacks and streetscape character:

Proposed front setbacks at ground level adversely affect our views along the street and streetscape character.

The proposed buildings front elevation at ground level is setback 6m from the front boundaries. However, the proposed blade walls extend to within 3m of the front boundaries. These blade walls are considered to conflict with the objectives of Part E2 of the DCP and are therefore conditioned to be deleted from the development.

Building height:

The building (inclusive of the flat roof) will be higher than permitted and adversely affect levels of solar access, views and privacy

Height: The top level has been deleted from the development and is now below the 15m maximum building height permitted under Section 2.3i of the DCP. It is noted that the proposal does not provide for any additional roof form above which is excluded from the building envelope plan under Part E2 of the DCP.

 

Solar access and overshadowing: It is acknowledged that the neighbouring flat buildings at No. 28 and 32 Blenheim Street will be significantly overshadowed between 8am and 10am and 2pm and 4pm respectively. An analysis of overshadowing from the amended development reveals that there will be no appreciable difference in overshadowing between the proposed development and a complying development, relating to the proposed developments: building depths at the northern and southern wings, the side setbacks and building heights.

 

Privacy: Privacy is considered to have been adequately addressed by the inclusion of privacy screens at the western side of the terrace at level 1, privacy screens across the face of west facing windows of apartments at level 2 and 3 and limitations on the hours that the Level 1 terrace may be used.

 

Views:

 

No significant views will be affected by the proposed development. There will be some additional impact on local views from the side elevations however, in accordance with the relevant planning principle for view sharing, these types of views, that is, from bedrooms and across side boundaries, which are neither iconic nor significant, are not considered reasonable to retain, particularly given that the proposed development is in compliance with the building height and majority of relevant controls.

 

Building envelope and western side boundary setbacks: result in adverse impacts on neighbouring sites amenity and would prefer a greater setback at the western side boundary in order to accommodate falling plants

The ground level wall along the western side boundary is generally consistent with the DCP envelope plan and diagrams. It is acknowledged that the wall is approximately 350mm higher than the minimum 3.3m floor to ceiling height control under Part E2 of the DCP; however, it is not considered that a reduction by this amount would have any appreciable benefits to the neighbour’s amenity.

 

See further discussion under the key issues section of this report relating to building envelope and setbacks.

 

Mezzanine level contains signficant bulk and will not consistent with the requirements under the DCP

 

The ‘mezzanine’ level is considered to represent unreasonable bulk and impacts and has been deleted from the development.

 

Bulk and size: the proposed building will have a bulk and scale over twice the size of surrounding buildings

The proposed development as amended and conditioned will satisfy the relevant objectives under the DCP and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties or the streetscape character.

 

The proposal generally complies with the envelope controls under Part E2 of the DCP except for the building depth of the western wings fronting Blenheim Street and High Street. These have been suitably assessed under the Key issues section of this report

 

Landscape open areas: The DCP requires a minimum of 50% open areas for the residential component of the proposed building and is not being met by the original or amended proposal

See key issues section further below. The RDCP 2013 requires landscaped and deep soil areas to be assessed against Part C2 (Medium Density Development) of the DCP. While there will be a shortfall in landscaping and deep soil areas when assessed against Part C2, this is largely dictated by the DCP envelope controls stipulated under Part E2 of the DCP including the need to provide basement access. This means that the provision of landscaping and deep soil areas should be balanced with the capacity with which the development of this single lot can be achieved under Part E2. As a result a merit assessment is carried out against the objectives for this subsection of Part C2 of the DCP, the type of development being sought and the overriding controls under Part E2 of the DCP.

 

The imminent development of the eastern suburbs light rail will alter the development controls along this corridor and the proposed development may sterilize this site for future redevelopment and that Council should request that this application be withdrawn

 

This not considered grounds to request the withdrawal of the application.

Should an amended Statement of environmental effects be submitted as a result of the variation to the proposed development

An amended statement of environmental effects is not considered necessary given the key issues raised relating to the original development are generally lessened by the proposed conversion from a boarding room facility to serviced apartments. It is acknowledged that the proposal seeks to add two additional consulting rooms at level 1; however these are sought in areas of the site where their use will be less intrusive than the original proposal. In particular, it is considered that the potential for adverse acoustic privacy impacts from the Level 1 terrace is minimised by replacing the common room with health consulting room. Further appropriate conditions are included in the recommedation section requiring further details in a management plan.

 

Potential for construction damage

Appropriate standard conditions are included in the recommendation section that reasonably addresses protection of neighbouring properties.

 

Air-conditioning units may be mounted onto level 1, 2 and 3 creating the potential for adverse noise, vibration and heat impacts

No airconditioning units are proposed as part of the application. Notwithstanding, suitable conditions are included requiring separate consent.

 

Concern that the level 1 terraces may be used for boarding rooms or serviced apartments which could result in greater amenity impact outside of business hours

Level 1 is sought to be used for the purposes of consulting rooms and not serviced apartments. The potential conversion into use for a boarding facility or serviced apartment at this level is therefore not a relevant matter for consideration under the Act. In relation to hours of operation of the consulting rooms and the potential noise impact from their use, a condition is included limiting the use of these terraced areas between 8am and 6pm Monday to Sunday.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP)

 

Zone R3 Medium Density

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as a mixed-use development containing health services and serviced residential apartments and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

-    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.   

The proposed development application, as amended, is considered to be consistent with the zone objectives in that:

-    The proposed development is of a density and scale identified under Part E2 of the DCP and the maximum height of 15m under the RLEP for mixed health services and residential development that provides for the housing needs of the community.

-    The proposal will deliver a development that reflects a good standard of urban design and will positively contribute to the amenity of the public realm.

-    The impacts of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining residents addressed within this report and the Council executive summary report are considered to be acceptable. 

-    The mass of the development is below the maximum overall height standards permitted under the RLEP and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on neighbouring properties having particular regard to overshadowing, privacy or views.

-    The impacts associated with the proposed development and a fully compliant development will not be appreciably different in so far as the amended developments overall bulk and mass, will not have an unreasonable adverse impact on the neighbouring properties access to natural light, ventilation and fresh air or privacy

-    The proposed amendments are suitably configured and articulated to minimise adverse amenity and visual impacts on surrounding properties and the streetscape character along High Street and Blenheim Street  

 

·      Clause Building Height

The development is subject to a maximum building envelope height of 15m under the RLEP and envelope controls under Part E2 of the DCP. The proposed development has a maximum height of 14.73m to the top of the lift overrun. The majority of the development has an overall building height of between 14.3m and 14.5m. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives for building mass and the more specific envelope controls under Part E2 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the DCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions to achieve the objectives of the DCP Controls.

 

·      Part B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

The proposed development is subject to certain RLEP aims and Part B7 objectives and controls under of the DCP.

 

Aims

The RLEP aims are to:

 

·      Support efficient use of land, vibrant centres, integration of land use and transport, and an appropriate mix of uses.

·      Promote sustainable transport, public transport use, walking and cycling

              

 

 

Objectives

The Part B7 objectives are for development proposals to investigate, design and manage parking demand, access, parking spaces and provide for alternative modes of transport having regard to the following:

 

·      To promote sustainable transport options for development, particularly along transport corridors, in commercial centres and strategic/key sites.

·      To manage the provision of car parking within the broader transport network.

·      To support integrated transport and land use options which can demonstrate shared and effective car parking provision with car share facilities, motorbikes/scooters, bikes and links to public transport.

·      To ensure car parking facilities, service and delivery areas and access are designed to enhance streetscape character and protect pedestrian amenity and safety.

 

Section 3 parking requirement controls

The proposed medical facility and consulting rooms have a total calculated floor area of approximately 372sqm. Section 3 of Part B7, control is for 1 space to be provided for every 25sqm of medical facility creating a demand for 14.8 parking spaces. The proposed development is for twelve serviced apartments and the controls under Section 3 of Part B7 require 1 space for every four serviced apartments thus creating a demand for 3 parking spaces. The proposed development provides 7 parking spaces (inclusive of a disabled car space) falling short of the total parking demand for 18 spaces. Council’s Development engineer has raised concerns that the deficiency in car parking is too large (See comments in Compliance Report)

 

In accordance with Section 3.3 Exceptions to the Parking Rates and as required by Part B7 of the DCP, the applicant submitted with their original application a Traffic Impact Assessment report, inclusive of an addendum received by Council on 22 July 2014, providing the following justifications for the shortfall:

 

·      The traffic generation will be moderate whereby the vast majority of visits will occur as walking trips with the vast majority of people attending the consulting rooms expected to walk from other public parking area or the extensive public transport bus services in the locality accessible within close walking distance along High, Street, Belmore Road and Botany Street and the site will benefit from the planned light rail service whose corridor runs along High Street in front of the site

 

·      The site is conveniently located with respect to the arterial and local road systems serving the region in all directions and is therefore able to effectively distribute traffic onto the wider road network, minimising traffic impacts.

 

·      The site is restricted by its width in being able to provide any additional parking at basement level in so far as the ramping down to a lower basement level is not achievable due to access and manouverability requirements.

 

·      Provision is made for bicycle spaces.

 

·      The opportunity is available to provide a management regime that promotes alternative travel modes for staff and visitors, through the provision of a Green Travel Plan

 

·      The ability exists to provide additional car share parking in the locality which would provide a public benefit as these spaces are available to the general public.

 

·      The preparation of a specific Operational Management Plan (OMP) for the medical/health facility as required by a condition of consent will ensure that there are no more than 5 consulting rooms (surgeries) in use at any one time, whereby specialist medical staff only attend their rooms on particular days and an appointments only approach may serve to overcome waiting times and accumulation of parking demands that potentially reduces parking demand.

 

·      There would be no additional parking provided if a mechanical stacker was to be installed on site

 

·      The previous medical facility provided for 7 consulting rooms with only 5 parking spaces provided on site thus having shortfall of 9 parking spaces.

 

·      A recent parking survey conducted for a medical facility in Silver Street revealed availability of short term parking in the locality.

 

·      There is a clear synergy between the proposed facility and the Prince of Wales Hospital located immediately opposite the site.

 

The abovementioned justifications in total are largely considered to have reasonably justified an exception to the parking demand of this mixed use facility. In particular, the key arguments considered to hold considerable weight include:

 

·       The site constraints making it impossible to provide additional parking within a lower basement level;

 

·       The sites close proximity to public transport and future development of light rail along the High Street frontage.

 

·       The willingness to manage the premises consultation times and attending specialists to which appropriate conditions may be included in the recommendation section requiring additional detail to be submitted to Council for approval prior to operation of the premises.

 

·       The facility is located in close proximity to co-located uses and facilities, namely the Prince of Wales Hospital opposite, and it is not considered that the non-compliance with parking rates is sufficient reason to warrant refusal of the application in this instance.

 

·       The service apartment use for rehabilitation, family and visiting specialists aligns substantially with the key directions and strategies for the Specialised Health Centre under Part E2 of the DCP which are to:

 

Intensify the cluster of education and health enterprises, and improve coordination of activities.

Integrate the multi-functional aspects of Randwick Racecourse with the education and health elements of the Centre.

Improve walking and cycling access to and within the Centre (emphasis added)

 

Part B9 Management Plan

The proposed development for serviced apartments in conjunction with a health facility is subject to the requirements of a management plan. The applicant submitted a management plan as part of their original application for the boarding house facility. However, this management plan has since become redundant following the amendment of their application to seek use of the residential component for the purposes of serviced apartments. The conversion into serviced apartments, being for short term accomodation rather than the minimum three month periods required for boarding rooms means a greater potential amenity impact. However, as indicated previously these proposed serviced apartments are sought to be used in conjunction with both the medical facilities provided on site as well as for medical rehabilitation and visiting specialists which are considered to lessen the potential for impacts. In addition, the amended application has removed the common room and assoicated terrace at level 1 further reducing the potential for impacts on the neighbouring flats opposite.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that adequate management of the serviced apartments is a reasonable expectation. In this respect, and in accordance with Part B9 Management Plan of the DCP, a condition of development consent is included in the recommendation section requiring a Management Plan to be submitted to Council for approval having regard to (but not limited by) the following aspects of the development:

 

·      Management of the serviced apartments

·      Waste management

·      Parking allocation

·      Complaint management

·      Booking, Reception and access provisions

·      Incorporate safety and security operation and access measures

 

Part C2 Medium Density Development

Landscaped open space and deep soil areas:

The proposed developments residential component requires an assessment against Section 2.2 of Part C2: Medium Density Development of the DCP relating to the objectives and controls for Landscaped open space and deep soil ares. The DCP requires a minimum of 50% landscaped open space and 25% of deep soil areas at ground level

 

The proposed development provides only 108.6sqm of landscaped open space area and only 15.8sqm of deep soil area at ground level fronting Blenheim Street adjacent to the main pedestrian ground level access point for the residential component. The level of landscaped open space and deep soil areas represents only 22% and 3.2% of the sites area respectively and well below the minimum DCP controls. It is noted that despite the shortfall in planted and permeable deep soil area at ground level, the proposal however does provide an additional 50sqm that is capable of accommodating deep soil areas up to 13.4% of the total site area (as defined under the DCP) in the paved section of the site at the High Street frontage. It should be noted that this paved deep soil area is proposed to have a tree and a low wall to provide visual interest and definition at the High Street frontage.  

 

Nonetheless, the shortfall in landscaped open space and deep soil areas requires a merit assessment against the relevant objectives under the DCP for landscaped open space and deep soil areas which 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.

 

These objectives will continue to be satisfied for the following reasons:

 

·      The Part E2 envelope controls such as the 6m front setback, requirements for vehicular access and active street frontage along High Street substantially limit the ability to provide any additional landscaped open spaces and deep soil areas at ground level.

 

·      The residential component is for serviced apartments –located well away from ground level and given serviced apartments are for short term visitor accommodation there is a lesser need for open space and landscaped areas that would otherwise be required for traditional long term apartment living under Part C2 Medium Density Development of the DCP.

 

·      Blenheim Street frontage: The proposed landscaped open space across the front of the property facing Blenheim Street measures 36sqm and accounts for over 50% of the sites frontage which is considered to fit in well with the existing level of landscaping provided across the front of properties along Blenheim Street. This open space area also contains within it deep soil area that serves to soften the appearnce of the development when viewed from street level. The proposed blade walls at ground level are not considered necessary and will detract from the openness along the Blenheim Street frontage and a condition is  included requiring these to be deleted from the development.

 

·      High Street frontage: The proposal provides large areas of open space paving, with very limited levels of landscaping and deep soil areas except for a tree behind the signboard. As indicated previously, additional deep soil and landscaping is capable of being provided across this frontage subject to future design and works with the light rail development for High Street. There are certain aspects of the develoment that can be amended in order to improve levels of openness across the High Street frontage including submission of:

 

An amended landscape plan that takes advantage of the 2.2m deep section of deep soil area located across the High Street frontage

Provision of a tree and a low wall in the deep soil area at the High Street frontage.  

Details of strip planting on the podium terrace

Landscape details showing membranes, drainage and irrigation systems within open space and podium areas of the development

Details showing the deletion of the ground level blade walls at the High Street frontage (as well as those located fronting the Blenheim Street frontage)

 

Overall, despite the non-compliance with the numerical controls under Part C2 of the DCP for landscaped open areas and deep soil areas, it is considered that the proposed development as required to be conditioned will satisfactorily provide levels of landscaping and open space that meet relevant objectives under part C2 as well as part E2 of the DCP.

 

Part E2 Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre

Building envelope controls

The proposed bulk and scale is generally consistent with the envelope controls, plans and sections under the Part E2 of the DCP; however, the building depth at the northern and southern wings have a depth of 15.1m (as shown in Figure 1 below) and exceed the 12m maximum depth under the DCP envelope control shown in Figure 2.

 

Figure 2: plan excerpt showing relevant sections of the development that exceed the 12m maximum depth control (yellow lines align with the wing depths and red boxes show the sections of the develoment that exceed the 12m maximum depth control under the DCP.

 

Figure 1: DCP envelopes

 

The relevant objectives under this section of the DCP seek:

                                                                              

·      To create a strong built edge to High Street and Botany Street.

·      To provide articulation to the built edge along High Street and Blenheim Street.

·      To manage stepping of built form with the topography.

·      To provide active street frontages to High Street and Botany Street at ground floor

 

Despite the additional 3.1m wing depths, the proposed development will continue to satisfy the abovementioned objectives in so far as the these parts of the building are located in the middle of the development and setback further from the site boundary than the main wings at the front. This means that they will not be immediately discernable from the Blenheim and High Street frontages.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that a merit assessment is required having regard to neighbouring flat building to the west opposite the non-complying portion of these wings. In this respect it is not considered that the variations from 12m maximum building depth control will result in significant adverse impacts on the opposite apartments amenity having regard to visual impact, overshadowing or general amenity for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed 3m side setbacks of this section of the development are similar to the side setbacks of the flat building opposite at No. 28 Blenheim Street.

 

·      The parts of the wings that extend beyond the 12m maximum depth control opposite the flat buildings habitable bedroom windows providing a total separation of at least 5.7m ensuring adequate access to light and fresh air and ventilation which are key objectives for side setbacks under Part C2 Medium Density Development in the DCP. Having regard to the controls for side setbacks under Part C2 of the DCP, the proposed 3m side setbacks exceed the 2m minimumm side setback controls for medium density development on sites with widths of between 12m and 14m

 

·      The level of direct solar access to the neighbouring properties habitable bedroom windows will not be improved by a development that complied with the DCP maximum depth controls in so far as the proposed development over compensates for the additional depth by a development that is below the DCP permissible 15m maximum height control. In short, it is considered that the level of overshadowing across the western elevation of the neighbouring flat building opposite will not be improved by a reduction in depth of the wings facing both Blenheim Street and High Street.

 

Setbacks

Front setbacks – Blenheim Street and High Street:

Part E2 of the RDCP prescribes minimum front setback controls for developments within the subject site requiring a minimum front setback of 6m at ground level from the Blenheim and High Street boundaries. The proposed development provides 6m setbacks to the front building line at ground level however it also incorporates blade walls that extend three metres beyond the front building line which contribute to bulk and scale of the development from both street frotnages. In order to limit the bulk and scale and to be ensuring greater consistency with the Building Envelope plan and diagrams, a condition is included requiring these blade walls to be deleted from the development.

 

Side setbacks:

Part E2 of the RDCP does not prescribe minimum side setback controls for developments within the subject site. However, Part E2 of the DCP does include a building envelope plan, a 3D diagram and an illustrative section that shows nil side setbacks at ground level and upper levels whose side setbacks are generally consistent with the front 3m setback control. The proposed development has varying side setbacks particularly from the western side boundary whereby the upper levels are setback less than 3m. In this respect, an assessment of the side setbacks is carried out as follows:

 

Ground level side setbacks:

A number of submissions have been received from the neighbouring apartment building to the west raising concerns that the proposed development with a wall of between 5.7m and 6m in height, located along the western side boundary will have a significant adverse impact on their amenity, namely their outlook from their habitable bedroom windows.

 

The proposed development is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed west elevation at ground level is at least 2.7m away from these habitable bedroom windows ensuring that natural light and ventilation will continue to be obtained to these bedroom windows;

 

·      The proposed massing of the wall along the western side boundary is largely an unavoidable consequence of the fall of the land from east to west and north to south, the need to accommodate a minimum floor to ceiling height for the ground level commensurate with the DCP requirement under Part E2 and limitations on ramp grades to the basement level below

 

·      The nil western side boundary setback is consistent with the DCP’s descriptive location of ground levels opposite existing strata titled flat buildings as shown in the Block 2 illustrative Building envelope plan below as well as the Building Envelope plan and 3D diagram shown in figure 2 above (below).

 

Figure 3: Illustrative Building envelope. The green outline identifies and correlates the nil western side boundary setbacks for new developments located opposite existing strata titled residential flat buildings (Blue boxes). Reference: Section 2.3 ix) of Part E2 of the DCP

 

Upper level side setbacks:

Level 1: The proposed first floor level is setback 2.7m from the western side boundary which is generally consistent with the side setback of the flat building opposite ensuring commensurate separation between the two buildings as well as providing adequate access to natural light and ventilation which are key objectives under the DCP. It is noted that concerns have also been raised relating to the potential privacy impact from the use of the Level 1 terrace into bedrooms windows of the apartment opposite at No. 28 Blenheim Street. The application has been amended, including the installation of privacy screens opposite these bedroom windows thus restricting direct sightlines. These measures are considered to have adequately provided reasonable levels of privacy protection to the neighbouring properties.

 

Levels 2 & 3: The proposed upper levels have varied western side setbacks of 2.07m, 3m and 7.225m (see figure 1 above). These proposed side setbacks are generally consistent with the DCP’s relevant building envelope plans and diagrams. The front wing sections of the development measuring 10.4m in length will be setback 2.07m from the western side boundary and will be slightly smaller than the diagrams suggest. There are no major concerns regarding these setbacks in so far as these sections of the elevation are not located opposite the habitable bedroom windows of apartments opposite, there would not be any appreciable benefits to the neighbouring properties amenity if they were setback further away, and these parts of the development are generally consistent with the setbacks exhibited on the street which are between 1m and 3m away.

 

The proposed setbacks are acceptable having regard to the building envelope plans, 3D envelope diagrams and the block illustrative plan of the DCP. Where a merit assessment has been undertaken namely relating to the front winged sections from the western side boundary and the ground level side setbacks, it is considered that the inclusion of a condition requiring the deletion of the ground level blade walls at either end of the development, will ensure the objectives under Part E2 of the DCP will be satisfied.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development will provide a well defined street edge; establish setbacks appropriate for a site of this width; ensure a rhythm of street setbacks that is sustainable within the precinct; provide adequate separation between neighbouring buildings ensuring adequate visual and acoustic privacy, access to natural light and ventilation and will not result in any loss of high value views.

 

Solar access and overshadowing:

An analysis of overshadowing reveals that the difference between the impacts of the proposed development and a complying development in relation to building depths of each wing at the northern and southern ends, side setbacks and building heights, will not be appreciably different in terms of the overshadowing cast onto the western elevation of the neighbouring flat building at No. 28 Blenheim Street between 8am and 10am (the period of the day in which most overshadowing is cast onto this western elevation).

 

Visual Privacy:

Privacy protections of the neighbouring properties particularly of those flats to the west are considered to have been adequately addressed by the amended plans received by Council on 19 August 2014. These plans show the inclusion of privacy screens at the western side of the terrace at level 1 directly opposite the adjoining western apartment bedroom windows. External privacy louvres are located on west facing windows health service rooms located in the centre of level 1 (identified as consulting rooms 4 & 5) and the west facing windows of serviced apartments 3, 4, 9 and 10. These screens are required to be fixed and be designed with an open area measuring not more than 25% across the surface of the screen louvres. In addition, the west facing windows of apartments on level 2 and 3 will be treated with fixed and obscured glazing up to a minimum height of 1.6m above the internal floor level.

 

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 has been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and is considered to be acceptable. Approval of the development is considered acceptable as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned).

 

The variation from the minimum landscape and deep soil area requirements of the RDCP has been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report above including that the proposal will provide paved deep soil area at the High Street frontage capable of being landscaped as evidenced by the provision of a tree and low wall to act as a softening element along this frontage.

 

The variation from the numerical car parking standard control of the RDCP has also been adequately assessed in the Key Issues section above. The shortfall in car parking is reasonable and acceptable considering that proposed facility is co-located within Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre which, among other things, will be served by a light rail system in the future.

 

The variation in building envelope depth has also been adequately assessed and justified in the Key Issues Section above, including the provision of adequate side setbacks where the variations occur (i.e. on the wing sections) and the existing orientation of the internal rooms within the adjoining western residential flat building. 

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed development is reasonable, subject to the recommended conditions below.

 

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/167/2014 for demolition of existing structure, construction of four level mixed use development comprising ground and first floor health services with serviced apartments above, basement carparking for 7 vehicles with associated works, at No. 30 Blenheim Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)  The privacy screens located along the western end of the level 1 terrace shall have a height of 1.6m above floor level. The privacy screens 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 windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

-    West facing windows on apartments 3, 4, 9 & 10

 

c)  The external louvre screens across the face of the following west facing windows must be fixed and designed so that the total area of openings within the screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screens:

-    West facing windows on apartments 3, 4, 9 & 10

 

d)  A Management Plan governing the use and operation serviced apartments shall be submitted to Council for approval having regard to (but not limited by) the following aspects of the development:

 

·      Management of the serviced apartments

·      Operational details

·      Amenity

·      Safety and security

·      Waste management

·      Fire safety

·      Deliveries and loading/unloading

·      Complaint management

·      Booking, Reception and access provisions

 

e)  A Management Plan governing the use of the health facilities and measures that will be used to demand manage the shortfall in parking subject to but not limited to the following:

 

·      Operational details

·      Amenity

·      Waste management

·      Deliveries and loading/unloading

·      Number of attending specialists at any one time and consultation times as per the originally submitted Traffic Assessment Report and associated amended statement dated 18 July 2014 and received by Council on 22 July 2014.

·      Allowances for the Drop-off of patients in the basement

·      Provision of car share vehicles

·      Prepare a green travel plan to minimise private car usage by staff

 

f)  A detailed landscape plan for the development must be submitted to, and be approved by, Council, prior to the issue of a construction certificate subject to (but not limited to) the following requirements:

                                   

·      Provide additional landscaping within the 2.2m deep section of deep soil area located across the High Street frontage

·      Details of strip planting on the podium terrace Level 1

·      Landscape details showing membranes, drainage and irrigation systems within open space and podium areas of the development.

 

Details of compliance are to be submitted to the Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development

 

g)  The ground level blade walls at either end of the development shall be deleted from the development so that these walls are setback in line with the ground level elevations facing Blenheim Street and High Street.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 30 Blenheim Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER