Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 11 November 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                                                                                        11 November 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, 11 November 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 - 14 October 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 69 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.

D103/14    12 Paton Street, Kingsford (DA/345/2009/F)............................................ 1

D104/14    22-24 Moore Street, Coogee (DA/941/2011/B).......................................... 7

D105/14    168 Cottenham Avenue, Kingsford (DA/334/2013/A)................................ 19

D106/14    114 - 114A Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/570/2014)............................. 25

D107/14    88-90 Botany Street, Randwick (DA/510/2012/A).................................... 39

D108/14    37 The Corso, Maroubra (DA/649/2014)................................................. 51

D109/14    14 Clifton Road, Clovelly (DA/636/2014)................................................. 61

 

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting NOT required)

M6/14       State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development Review............................................................................................ 67

M7/14       Affordable Housing Research Grant....................................................... 97    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D103/14

 

 

Subject:                  12 Paton Street, Kingsford (DA/345/2009/F)

Folder No:                   DA/345/2009/F

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96AB Review of the approved development which sought the retrospective consent for the installation of air conditioning units

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Siejam Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Siejam Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Confirmation of original determination

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview65962.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks the review of the determination of the Section 96 (2) application which sought the retrospective consent of the installation of air conditioning units to the upper level of the southern side of the dwelling.

That Section 96 (2) application was approved subject to condition, No.83 which stated;

 

‘The three air conditioning units shown on Section 96 ‘F’ plan numbered BETA-01, Revision A, dated 21 May 2014 and received by Council on 27 May 2014 shall be relocated to the western side of the dwelling at first floor level. The two smaller size units are to be located under windows identified as W09F and W15 directly outside the ensuite. The larger air conditioning unit is to be located outside the southern side of the external wall of Bedroom 1.’

 

The recommendation is to confirm the original determination.

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Nash, Stavrinos and Andrews.

 

Proposal

 

The original application DA/345/2009/F sought the retrospective consent for the installation of three air conditioning units to the upper level of the southern side of the dwelling.

 

That application was approved subject to condition No.83, as noted above, which sought to minimize the potential impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining residents by locating the air conditioning units away from the closest part of the adjoining dwelling.

 

This Section 96 AB application seeks the review of Council’s determination of the 20th June 2014 and condition No.83.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Paton Street and has a frontage of 9.145m, depth of 36.575m and site area of 334m. The locality is residential and contains a mixture of older and contemporary dwellings. At present on site there is a two storey dwelling which is subject of the original development consent DA/345/2009 and is nearing the completion of building works.

 

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:

 

Issue

Comment

8 Paton Street Kingsford

 

-Objects to the installation of the air conditioning units as they are not at ground level and are higher than 1.8m.

 

14 Paton Street Kingsford

 

-Objects to the air conditioning units being installed to the first floor of the dwelling as they will be directly opposite their bedroom window on their approved development application for their new dwelling.

 

-The condition to relocate the air conditioning units was a fair compromise.

 

 

-The application should be reconsidered to move all of the air conditioning units to the western side of the dwelling or at the original position at ground floor where they will have minimal disruption to the neighbouring properties.

 

 

Noted, the units have been installed not in accordance with the original development consent.

 

 

 

The installation of the air conditioning units are opposite the window of their approved but as yet un built new dwelling. See comments below in the Key Issues section in relation to the report from the Acoustic Consultant.

 

The original condition of consent was considered a compromise to maintain the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

As noted above the original condition was considered to be a reasonable compromise and would maintain the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

Key Issues

 

The main issue for consideration with this application is the impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties with respect to potential noise nuisance caused by the position of the three air conditioning units to the southern side first floor level of the dwelling.

 

The location of these units is directly opposite the bedroom window of the proposed new dwelling which is the subject of an approved development application at 14 Paton Street.

 

Figure 1. Existing air conditioning condenser units

 

The applicant as requested by Council has provided a report from Wilkinson Murray Acoustic Consultants. The report assesses the potential noise impact from the operation of the three air conditioning units as installed. This report is based on the fact that the worst affected property is 14 Paton Street, and based on the approved plans for that property the closest window to the new house would be approximately 4m from the existing position of these air conditioner condenser units.

 

The report also includes the predicted noise levels from the air conditioner units that would be experienced from the proposed new dwelling at 14 Paton Street.

 

The conclusion reached by Wilkinson Murray is the air conditioning units will exceed the intrusive noise criteria in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Noise Guide for Local Government that requires a noise level being less than or equal to the background noise level plus 5dB(A).

 

Wilkinson Murray recommend the construction of a 1.4m high continuous noise barrier consisting of 6mm thick non compressed fibre cement sheeting or similar with an absorption layer of rockwool or polyester, across the face of the air conditioning condenser units, above the ground level indent of the dwelling, to reduce the noise levels to 14 Paton Street. See figure 2 below.

 

Figure 2. Proposed noise barrier

The introduction of the noise barriers would change the appearance of the dwelling and the likely impact to the visual amenity of the adjoining property.

 

During the assessment of the original development application of the dwelling at 12 Paton Street a condition was imposed to reduce overshadowing to the adjoining property to the south by increasing the upper level setback of the dwelling from the southern boundary to 1500mm, except for the part of the dwelling accommodating the stairs. This condition also improved the modulation of the dwelling and reduced the extent of the solid wall to the southern side of the dwelling.

 

The installation of the acoustic barrier as suggested is considered to be a unsatisfactory response for maintaining the amenity of the adjoining property. The erection of this barrier would effectively increase the height of the dwelling by 1.4m for the length of the wall where the air conditioning units are placed.

 

The visual outlook from the location of the window of the adjoining property at 14 Paton Street would be directly upon this noise barrier, rather than the articulated wall of the dwelling as approved. That outlook upon to the noise barrier would be in conflict with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone which seeks to protect the amenity of residents.

 

It is recommended that the original decision of Council be confirmed and condition 83 of consent remain as originally imposed.

 

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

 

That the original determination of Council be confirmed.

 

Recommendation

 

                        That Council's original determination of Development Application No. DA/345/2009/F dated 20 June 2014 to refuse consent for the retrospective approval of the three air conditioning units at the dwelling first floor level at 12 Paton Street Kingsford be confirmed.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D104/14

 

 

Subject:                  22-24 Moore Street, Coogee (DA/941/2011/B)

Folder No:                   DA/941/2011/B

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of approved development by extending the depth of the rear ground floor deck of No.22 Moore Street, relocating staircase from ground floor, extend the depth of the rear first floor balconies of both dwellings, extend privacy screen to western side of balcony at No.22 Moore Street, alter roof form to both dwellings and changes to window in the western side elevation of No.22 Moore Street

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Urbanesque Planning Pty Ltd

Owner:                        J Fisher and C Doughty

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview65997.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application seeks to modify the original consent which was approved under delegated authority on 19 March 2012.  The existing approval detailed substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 22 Moore Street including a new first floor, deck and swimming pool to rear, a new carport to the front and partial replacement of the roof at 24 Moore Street.

 

The application has also been the subject of a subsequent application to modify the consent to increase the area of the rear first floor bedroom, alter the roof profile and delete conditions in relation to maintaining privacy from the western side of the dwelling.

 

That modification, DA/941/2011/A, was approved with respect to the roof form and the extent of the rear addition, and the privacy conditions were varied to address concerns raised by the adjoining neighbours.

 

This application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillor’s Shurey, Matson and Neilson.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

 

The details of the proposed modifications which are the subject of this application are as detailed below;

 

a)       Extend the rear ground level deck by 1.05m and modify the stairs to match.

b)       Extend the rear balconies to match the setback of the balconies at No.26 Moore Street.

c)       Alter the roof over the front of both dwellings facing the street to provide a symmetrical gable.

d)       Amend the approve window W1 to bedroom 2 in the west elevation to two small vertical windows.

e)       Extend the rear eave of the building by 600mm.

 

The applicant’s justification for the proposed amendments is as follows;

 

“The extension of the rear deck provides increased amenity for the residents as the deck connects directly with the living area of the dwelling, the larger deck does not add gross floor area to the development and extends to a similar level as neighbouring decks further to the east of the subject site. The extension of the stairs from the basement storeroom is a minor consequential amendment. The deck will be cantilevered above the ground level and will allow infiltration to the ground beneath.

The extension of the upper level decks serving the bedrooms will allow increased amenity and will match the setbacks of similar approved decks to the east of the subject site. The approved 1.6m slatted privacy screen will be extended to the new dimensions on the western end of the deck to protect the privacy of the adjoining property.

 

The roof changes are cosmetic in nature and will improve the external presentation of the dwelling to the street and rear. The streetscape presentation will be similar to 26-28 Moore Street, will be symmetrical and consistent.

 

The splitting of W9 into two smaller vertical windows (W1 & W1A) is also proposed for aesthetic and functional reasons. The separation of W1 allows a bed to be placed on the western wall of the bedroom 2 or along the northern wall. There is no additional impact created upon the amenity of the adjoining property to the west as the windows will maintain the approve louvers and are subject to condition 2b of the original consent.”

 

NB:     An original condition of consent No. 4 stated;

 

‘The first floor balcony at the rear shall not exceed a maximum depth of 2000mm’. If approval is granted to this modification this condition will have to be deleted as the proposed modification increases the depth of the balcony to 3m.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the northern side of Moore Street in Coogee between Major Street to the east and Gordon Avenue to the west. The site is surrounded by low to medium density residential development of varying architectural style.

 

The site contains two semi detached dwellings on separate titles know as 22 and 24 Moore Street.

 

Figure 1: Nos. 22 and 24 Moore Street, Coogee to the right in the photo

 

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:

 

Issue

Comment

20 Moore Street Coogee

-The extension of the ground floor deck will mean that this area will extend across their entire backyard from the rear of the dwelling to the garage.

 

-The height of the deck above natural ground level at 925m above ground level will mean that there will be a loss of privacy into their backyard from the deck.

 

-Noise from the deck will travel straight into their back yard and the rear of their house.

 

 

 

-The outlook to the east will be reduced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The current configuration of the deck will impact upon the quiet enjoyment of their property and the proposed extension of the deck will extinguish what privacy is left.

 

-The provision of any form of privacy screen would block out their view of the ocean.

 

 

 

 

-The extension of the rear first floor balcony is in contravention of the original condition of consent and should be maintained as the enlarged balcony will significantly impact on the privacy of their property and obscure views.

 

 

-The application notes a 1.6m high privacy screen to the western side of the deck, the original 1.8m height should be maintained.

 

-The plans show modifications to the rear roof form which is not included in the SEE. This should be properly submitted to allow and assessment by all parties.

 

-In relation to the window changes in the western elevation it is unclear what the original window configuration was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 Moore Street Coogee

-The extension of roof lines and the extension of the upper level deck will impact on their light and views from their property.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The extension of the upper level deck will lead to a loss of privacy into their dwelling.

 

-Any change to the roof is to be accompanied by a stormwater drainage plan and information should be sought from the applicants of the existing and proposed guttering and stormwater drainage to ensure that stormwater drainage complies with the relevant building codes.

 

-The proposed changes now include the top floor of No.24 Moore Street which was not included in the original application.

 

 

 

-The changes to the roofline of the dwelling allows for living space under the roof line which is now shown on the plans.

 

 

-Their building has not been shown on the plans which would enable them to assess the impacts to their windows.

 

 

-There are no shadow diagrams provided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The stairs on the eastern side of the deck will enable viewing into their windows and doors.

 

 

 

-The extension of the rear deck will lead to overbuilding of the property and will breach the floor space ratio, open space, and soft landscaping controls.

 

 

 

- A single entry/exit point is mentioned on the site management plan, where is that, they strongly object to the applicant using Kildare Lane for access for building work due to pedestrian safety.

 

 

 

 

 

-The modification to the works does not satisfy the definition of being substantially the same development.

 

 

 

 

 

-Their solar panels may be affected by the proposed change to the roof form.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The proposed modifications will diminish light into their windows in the side of their dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Will the rear upper level deck remain as open space or will it be enclosed.

 

-There is a structural post at the end of the deck/roof, what are the dimensions of that post.

 

 

 

-This Section 96 application may be used to fully enclose the upper level rear of No.24.

 

 

 

-The increased roof ridge height of the building is unnecessary and will result in the building being prominent in the street and will add unnecessarily to the light and ventilation impacts to their property.

 

 

 

The amended rear deck will extend a further 1050mm into the rear yard area.

 

 

 

See Key Issues below.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed increase in the depth of the deck would not substantially increase potential noise from the use of the deck in comparison with the already approved deck. 

 

The outlook from the rear of the adjoining properties is across the rear of the subject property towards the garage on their property and the buildings on the adjoining properties. There are distant glimpses of the ocean. The ocean outlook is already mostly obscured by existing vegetation within 20 Moore Street.

 

See Key Issues below

 

 

 

 

 

No additional privacy screen is proposed as the existing privacy screening and vegetation on sections of the western side boundary already provides sufficient visual buffer between No.20 Moore Street and the subject site.

 

The first floor balcony at the rear was the subject of an original condition of consent which stated that the balcony shall not exceed 2m in depth. See comments in the Key Issues section below with respect to privacy. As noted above, the views are not direct water views.

 

The 1600mm high privacy screen to the western side of the upper level was approved under the previous Section 96 application and consent.

 

The rear roof change is the extension of the rear eaves by 600mm.

 

 

 

A comparison with the originally approved western elevation illustrates the changes to the original window configuration relate to the single window to bedroom 2 being changed to two small windows. In addition, condition 2(b) of the consent remains applicable which requires the openings of the louvers not exceed 25% of the area of the windows.

 

Views from the rear of the adjoining property at 26 Moore Street will not be significantly impacted by the amended roof as the direct outlook to the north and east which is the direct view across to Gordon’s Bay and the headland of Clovelly will not be impacted by the proposed amendment to the approved building. Any impact to light to the adjoining property would be minor and the resultant access to direct sunlight to the adjoining properties would readily comply with the Randwick DCP control with the direct northern aspect maintained.

 

See Key Issues below

 

 

 

The issues in relation to stormwater drainage are covered by conditions 20 to 23 of the original consent and remain applicable to the subject application.

 

 

 

 

 

The original application included the partial replacement of the roof of the adjoining semi at 24 Moore Street and the proposed modifications are considered to represent substantially the same development.

 

The proposed extension of the roof over the existing open terrace does not include any enclosure of that area to provide for additional floor area.

 

 

The proposal has been discussed on site with the Objector to clarify the proposed position of the dwelling in relation to impacts to their windows.

 

Shadow diagrams have been provided which demonstrate the additional overshadowing upon the adjoining premises. The shadow diagrams have been discussed with the owner of No.26 and in particular the extent of additional overshadowing in comparison with the approved development.

 

The stairs to the eastern side of the deck were part of the original approval to provide access to the lower ground store and are not modified by this proposed development.

 

The deck does not alter the floor space ratio of the buildings or significantly alter the existing landscaped area or site coverage and for the purposes of a Section 96 application the proposal remains substantially the same.

 

This notation refers to general comments on the site analysis/site management plan. The single access point is not nominated. It is noted that there is already access from the Moore Street frontage. A condition of consent is included to ensure that no building work access is to be via Kildare Lane at rear which is a pedestrian laneway only.

 

The overall scope of the modification to the approved development will remain substantially the same development and for the purpose of a Section 96 application satisfies the definition of being substantially the same development.

 

The proposed modification will result in additional overshadowing upon the roof of the adjoining building during the afternoon, however the existing location of the solar panels at No.26 are towards the front of the building which will already be in shadow during the afternoon by the approved development.

 

The proposal will result in additional overshadowing to the rear side window in the western elevation of No.26, however that room also has large floor to ceiling glass doors that provide direct access to the rear balcony and the open direct northern aspect will maintain light to that room.

 

This application does not propose any enclosure of the rear decks.

 

The dimensions of the supporting post to the rear balcony roof overhang of No.24 Moore Street are not nominated. This post is in line with the rear external wall at first floor level of No.22 Moore Street.

 

Any future application to enclose the upper level rear deck will be assessed at that time and as it does not form part of this application it is not relevant to the consideration of this application.

 

The revised roof design to the building will improve the appearance of the buildings in the street as they will remain symmetrical. The overall bulk and scale of the building as viewed from the street will remain consistent with the adjoining and nearby buildings in the street.

There is no change to the roof ridge height.

 

Key Issues

 

S96 Assessment

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the proposal remains substantially the same Development. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed changes will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted.

 

Overall, the proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent. Notwithstanding, the following key issues associated with the modification as sought are as follows:

 

Privacy

All the properties on the northern side of Moore Street have extensive views from the rear across Gordon’s Bay and towards Clovelly headland and have their primary living areas orientated to the rear to take advantage of the view and outlook.

 

To a large degree the view is only available progressively across all the properties towards the direction of the view, to the north east. If solid barriers such as privacy screens were installed to balconies or decks, as may be applied in other circumstances, the views from the adjoining properties would be either partially or totally blocked. It should be noted that a previous development application to the adjoining property at 26 Moore Street required the removal of a privacy screen to maintain the view across their property.

Figure 2: Existing rear decks of the subject property at right, and the adjoining dwelling at No.26 Moore Street.

 

The additional depth of the rear upper level balcony which extends across both properties by 1400mm to align with the rear upper level balcony of No.s 26-28 Moore Street will result in some additional overlooking. However in comparison to the existing situation of the large open balcony at the rear of No.24, the extent of additional overlooking will not be so significant that would justify the refusal of the increased depth of the balcony. As noted above, a privacy screen across the whole eastern side of the balcony would prevent direct overlooking, but would also block out to some extent the view.

 

In relation to the adjoining property at 20 Moore Street, the approved 1600mm high privacy screen will be extended to maintain the privacy of No.20 Moore Street. There is no upper level currently to No.20 Moore Street and this privacy screen will not block any available view from an upper level, but will prevent overlooking down into the private open space of No.20 Moore Street. To the enlarged ground level deck the proposal also details the extension of an existing privacy screen to the side fencing to the end of the deck which is to a height of 1800mm above the level of the deck, this will prevent direct overlooking from that deck into the rear yard of No.20 Moore Street.

 

 

Figure 3: Existing fence/screen. Also note the existing vegetation at No.20 Moore Street.

 

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 application to modify the consent satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for approval.

 

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/941/2011/B for permission to modify the approved development at 22-24 Moore Street, Coogee in the following manner:

 

A.        Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

         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

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

B00

B (8/03/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

9 March 2012

B01

B (8/03/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

9 March 2012

B02

B (8/03/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

9 March 2012

B03

B (8/03/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

9 March 2012

B04

B (8/03/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

9 March 2012

B05

B (8/03/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

9 March 2012

B07

B (8/03/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

9 March 2012

 

B (8/03/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

9 March 2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

22 Moore Street

A128670

4 December 2011

 

         As amended by the Section 96’A’ plans as detailed below.

 

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

D00

D (27/8/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

27th August 2012  

D01

D (27/8/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

27th August 2012

D02

D (27/8/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

27th August 2012

D03

D (27/8/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

27th August 2012

D04

D (27/8/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

27th August 2012

D05

D (27/8/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

27th August 2012

D07

D (27/8/2012)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

27th August 2012

 

         As amended by the Section 96’B’ plans as detailed below.

 

Plan

Rev.

Drawn by

Stamped

E00

E (05/05/14)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

26th September 2014

E01

E (05/05/14)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

26th September 2014

E02

E (05/05/14)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

26th September 2014

E03

E (05/05/14)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

26th September 2014

E04

E (05/05/14)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

26th September 2014

E05

E (05/05/14)

Alexander Jankov Drafting

26th September 2014

 

B          Condition No. 4 be deleted.

 

C          The following condition be included;

 

65.     No vehicular access for building work is permitted in Kildare Lane at the rear of the property.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D105/14

 

 

Subject:                  168 Cottenham Avenue, Kingsford (DA/334/2013/A)

Folder No:                   DA/334/2013/A

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96AB Review of the Section 96 application to delete condition 2(a) of the development consent which deleted a carport from the application

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                M Alexander

Owner:                        L & T Follrich

Summary

Recommendation:     Confirmation of the original determination

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview66028.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks the review of the determination of the Section 96 (2) application that sought to delete condition 2(a) of development consent, DA/334/2013, that required the deletion of a carport to the front of the property.

 

The recommendation is to confirm the original determination.

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The original development application DA/334/2013 detailed alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including a new front carport. That application was approved subject to conditions on the 15th July 2013, including condition 2(a) which stated;

 

‘The proposed carport located in the north eastern corner of the site shall be deleted’.

 

Figure 1. Position of carport as originally proposed which abutted the northern side and the front boundary.

 

The original application DA/334/2013/A sought to delete condition 2(a) of development consent.

 

That application also proposed a revised carport design to provide a hipped roof to the carport instead of the gable end roof and to reduce the profile of the supporting posts of the carport. See figure 2 below.

 

Figure 2. Originally proposed carport and modified proposal as described above.

Section 96 modification of the carport:

 

 

Originally proposed:

 

 

The Section 96 application, DA/334/2013/A, was refused for the following reasons;

 

1.  The proposed development is not consistent with objectives of the R2 zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposal will adversely impact the environment of the locality by compromising the established streetscape. 

 

2.  The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls for side setback requirements as detailed in Section 3.3 Setbacks, Section 6.2 Parking Facilities Forward of Front Façade Alignment and Section 6.3 Setbacks of Parking Facilities under the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 in that the proposed carport does not integrate with the dwelling behind, it will dominate the front open space that prevails along Cottenham Avenue and the forward location of the carport will not be consistent with the streetscape character as viewed along Cottenham Avenue.

 

3.  The proposal is not in the public interest and does not satisfy Section 79C(i)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

The Section 96 AB seeks the review of Council’s determination of the 17th June 2014.

 

Site

The subject site is on the western side of Cottenham Avenue with a frontage of 7.99m, depth of 36.575m and an area of 291m. On site at present there is an existing semi detached dwelling.

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the review in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No response has been received.

 

Key Issues

The location, size and configuration of parking and vehicular access have significant implications on building design and the streetscape character. In this regard it is important that parking facilities are properly integrated into the architecture of buildings and do not present as prominent or intrusive features.

 

The objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that car parking structures do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape and will be integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element.

 

At present there is a driveway which extends along the northern side of the property which at the front of the property allows for the safe and convenient off street parking of a vehicle, see photo below, figure 3.

Figure 3: Front of the building

 

The originally proposed carport is to the front of the dwelling sited up to the side and the front boundary, see figure 1 above. The proposed carport had dimensions of 3m x 5.6m.

The DCP includes specific controls in Section 6.2 i & ii) which permit a single width carport in front of the front façade within the front setback areas only where:

·      There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking;

·      The site has a significant slope with the dwelling being elevated above the street level;

·      The carport will not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas;

·      The carport location will not pose an undue risk on the safety of pedestrians; and

·      The carport will not require the removal of significant landscape elements that enhance the streetscape, such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls.

As noted above and as evident from the figure 3, there is an existing driveway to the northern side of the property which already allows for safe and convenient off street parking. The use of the driveway in front of the dwelling for off street parking does not rely upon the provision of a carport.

The critical planning objectives for front setbacks seek to ensure a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and the form and massing of developments complement and enhance the streetscape character.

At present, front yards free of any structures prevail in Cottenham Avenue and the nearby and surrounding locality which form what is considered to be the established character of the street. The proposed carport will disrupt the openess to the front of the site which contributes to the streetscape character.

It is noted that there are some examples of similarly sited carports and garage structures in the immediate locality however these examples are mostly older structures approved under previous planning controls which placed must less emphasis on streetscape character and whilst their existence is acknowledged they do not represent the dominant streetscape character that could be used to justify non compliance with the DPC objective and controls.

 

Therefore a carport to the front of the dwelling does not comply with the relevant objectives of the DCP as a carport will be visually dominant in the streetscape and will not integrate with the established character of the existing dwelling and will detract from the streetscape setting of the dwelling.

 

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

 

That the original determination of Council be confirmed.

 

Recommendation

 

                   That Council's original determination of Development Application No. DA/334/2013/A dated 17 June 2014 to refuse the request to delete condition 2(a) of the development consent for 168 Cottenham Avenue Kingsford be confirmed.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D106/14

 

 

Subject:                  114 - 114A Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/570/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/570/2014

Author:                   Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing attached dual occupancy and construction of a new double garage fronting Dick Street (variation to floor space ratio control).

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Adam Boyle

Owner:                        Adam Boyle and Eliza Ashe

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview63974.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as a Clause 4.6 variation greater than 10% is sought in relation to the Floor Space Ratio standard under the RLEP 2012.

1.         Proposal

 

The proposed development includes the following:

 

·           Demolition of the rear western wall;

·           Extension of the ground floor dwelling;

·           Internal reconfiguration of the ground floor resulting in an additional bathroom and open plan kitchen/living room;

·           Demolition of rear western roof located directly above the proposed ground floor addition;

·           Extension of the rear first floor balcony to replace the demolished roof with privacy screen;

·           Demolition of the existing rear garage facing Dick Street;

·           Construction of a double garage on the existing hardstand space.

 

A Clause 4.6 variation is sought in relation to Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio as the proposed development results in an FSR of 0.61:1 and the development standard under the RLEP provides a maximum FSR of 0.5:1 for a dual occupancy development.

 

Photo 1: Rear of the subject site and location of proposed works.

 

2.         Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot B in DP 316963, No. 114 Carrington Road, Randwick. The site contains a secondary frontage on to Dick Street and is alternately known as No. 3-3A Dick Street, Randwick. The site is located within a triangle created by Glebe Street, Dick Street and Carrington Road. The parcel is irregular in shape with the boundaries described below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern eastern boundary towards

17.78m

475m2

Northern eastern boundary towards Dick Street

15.42m

Northern boundary facing Dick Street

10.07m

Western boundary

9.4m

Southern boundary

36.575m

Eastern boundary fronting Carrington Road

13.41m

 

The topography of the site includes a significant fall from the rear of the site to the street, with an approximate cross-fall of 6m.  

 

Current site improvements include an attached two storey dual occupancy fronting Carrington Road and a single garage and hardstand carspace facing Dick Street to the rear. The dual occupancy presents as a two storey dwelling when viewed from the street.

 

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by a mix of residential dwelling houses and residential flat buildings two to three storeys in height. 1 Dick Street is identified within Schedule 5 of the RLEP 2012 as local heritage item and adjoins the subject site to the rear. Whilst the subject site and Dick Street are zoned R2 Low Density Residential, the surrounding locality is generally zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.

 

3.         Site History

 

DA/356/1991

BA/488/1992

Approval granted for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house to create a dual occupancy.

BA/1131/1997

Approval granted to enclose the existing ground floor and first floor balconies to the front of the dual occupancy.

LA/567/2013

On 27 August 2013, local approval was granted for the construction of a vehicular access to the site.

 

4.         Submissions

 

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

 

5.         Exceptions to development standards

 

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

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio, contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

5.1            Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4 (2) states that the maximum FSR for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. The Map provides a maximum FSR of 0.5:1 for the subject site.

 

The FSR resulting from proposed development is 0.61:1. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Proposed FSR

0.61:1 (gross floor area: 291.54 sqm)

Existing FSR

0.57:1 (gross floor area: 272.84 sqm)

LEP development standard

0.5:1

% variation to development standard

11%

 

(i)        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 sub clause (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.

 

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 Environment 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.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure of the standard as follows:

 

Explain how the proposal, notwithstanding the non-compliance with the development standard, will achieve the objective of the development standard.

 

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

Due to the small scope of works proposed that fall outside of the regular DA process an addition of 7.4 square metres will have minimal impact to the desired future of the locality. These works will create a more functional space that will improve the space for future use and will be in line with other properties in the locality.

 

While the proposed floor space (0.596:1) is above the ratio set out in the provisions it is clear that the minimal increase in space will create a far more functional environment. Given the date of the original building (circa 1920’s) the updating and modernisation of the structure will bare minimum impact to surrounding properties with near zero visibility from any neighbouring property.  The enclosing of this space and the 7.4sqm addition will create a far more functional environment and will aid to the appearance of the structure for the small amount of visibility from the street. The present view from the street and the current structures are detailed in Appendix 1 of this report.

 

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

The enclosing and modernisation of this space will aid to (sic) the energy efficiency the dwelling. At present there is a slow rot occurring due to water damage from the above balcony. This scope of work will propose to fix the above water problem as well as create a new structure that will cover the additional 7.4sqm and create a better flow for any excess water. This will also better seal the building from its present state therefore creating a better environmental situation.

 

The overall impact to the surrounds will be minimal as this is already a concrete surface is (sic) the proposed development space. This has semi- permanent covering that is old and weathered.

 

Therefore the environmental impact and appearance will be barely impacted and will encourage a better flow of runoff water etc.

 

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

The proposed development is not in a conservation area, and is not adjacent to any heritage items.

 

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

Given the size and scale of the development there will be no shadowing or loss of privacy to any surrounding residences. The development itself will only be visible from the driveway at the rear of the road and will therefore pose minimal impact to any neighbours. The current state of the property as illustrated in Appendix 1 highlights the weathering and the poor aesthetic value it provides to any onlookers. The proposed development will finish the residence in a much more aesthetically pleasing style.

 

The minimal increase to the FSR will aid in delivering a far better layout for the property with little to no impact to neighbouring properties.

3. Consistency with State and Regional Planning Policies.

 

The proposed development is not in a conservation area, and is not adjacent to any heritage items (sic).

 

4. The variation allows for a better planning outcome.

 

The additional floor space within this proposal delivers a better planning outcome as the appearance and function of the building will provide a more practical living environment. The design of this development and the utilisation of current unused space will enable a better outcome for all parties involved. It is considered that the proposed FSR is associated with a more logical floor plan for modern living.

 

5. There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation.

 

There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation including;

 

•   The improvement of the slowly deteriorating structure at present due to water damage occurring to the external and internal components of the dwelling as seen in Appendix 2.

•   The proposed FSR while over the current agreed level will have minimal impact on the surrounding environment and will have minimal impact in any shadowing occurring to the direct garden and zero impact to surrounding properties.

•   There are no adverse impacts to any privacy considerations for surrounding properties.

•   Upon completion of the dwelling a more appropriate use of the external facilities will be available as space will be more functionally utilised without impacting the current greenery and landscaping.

 

6. The variation is in the public interest

 

Assessment: At present the building's appearance and weather damage internally and externally (as visible in appendix 2) creates a less aesthetically pleasant environment than proposed. The increase in FSR will enable the current unused concrete walkway to be completed to a modern standard in line with the current building but will allow for a modern floor plan in line with today's living style.

 

The proposed FSR is in line with surrounding properties and will not adversely affect any surrounding properties and will add to the appearance of the area.

 

Conclusion

For reasons mentioned herein, this clause 4.6 variation is forwarded to council in support of the development proposal at 114 Carrington Road, Randwick and is requested to be looked at favourably by council.

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of the FSR standard, it is considered that the development achieves a high level of consistency with the objectives and will provide a positive planning outcome.

 

The proposed development is also consistent with the underlying intention of the standard as the proposed alterations are consistent with the size and scale of dwellings within the locality and does not affect the adjoining heritage item due to the minor nature of the addition.

 

Whilst the proposal exceeds the maximum allowable FSR under the development standard, the proposed floor space of the development is considered to meet the objectives of the clause where relevant. The variation is considered acceptable when a merit assessment is undertaken of the objectives as shown below:

 

·      The minor addition is located to the rear of the ground floor dual occupancy. The development will continue to present as a 2 storey built form to Carrington Road and Dick Street, and remains consistent with the existing built scale of the street.

·      The proposed FSR is compatible with the size and scale of recent developments approved in the street, as shown in the table below:

 

116 Carrington Road

0.75:1

DA/653/2013 alterations and additions to a residential flat building.

14 Dick Street

0.594:1

DA/54/2014 alterations and additions to a dwelling house.

 

·      The existing dual occupancy is water damaged as shown in the photos from the applicant previously. The proposal includes upgrades to the damaged brickwork and removal of the awning which will result in a positive visual outcome when viewed from Dick Street. The extension will result in some additional articulation to the built form which will be partially obstructed due to the sloping topography of the site and subsequent lowered floor level of the dwelling as viewed from Dick Street.  

·      The increase in FSR maintains the compatibility with the adjoining heritage item in that the built form does not impact the setting or view of the Item and is below the allowable FSR of 0.65:1 if the development were a dwelling house.

·      Other environmental impacts resulting from the development are considered to satisfactory, as discussed throughout this report.

 

It is considered that approval of this development would not compromise the integrity of the RLEP 2012 and that flexibility in this instance is well founded based on the minor scope of the works in comparison to the existing scale and character of the street. The applicant’s request is considered to have satisfactorily demonstrated that compliance with Clause 4.4 is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of this proposal.

 

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

The proposal is minor in nature and maintains the relevant locality objectives in that the FSR is consistent with the existing scale of low and medium density development in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposal protects the amenity of adjoining neighbours and does not result in additional non-compliances with the relevant standards and controls whilst also meeting the needs of the existing residents.

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard. The objectives for development within the R2 – Low Density Residential zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out 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 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 proposal provides for an appropriate low-density housing development with regard to the existing dual occupancy development on site and surrounding built form.

 

The minor nature of the proposal retains the amenity of adjoining neighbours. The additional built form at the rear of the dual occupancy responds well to the topography of the site and reduces the impact of the minor additional visual bulk.

 

The setting and views of the adjoining heritage item remains unaffected by the proposal and generally maintains the existing scale between the two when viewed from Dick Street.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest as it is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.4 and the relevant objectives for development within the R2 - Low Density Residential zone.

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

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

 

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

 

6.         Key Issues

 

·           Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation

The subject site adjoins a local heritage item at 1 Dick Street. The proposal seeks to demolish the existing single garage and construct a double garage on the existing hardstand carspace. Both the existing and proposed garages are located along the boundary between the sites and adjacent to the garage at 1 Dick Street. The garage at 1 Dick Street is not of any heritage significance and constructed around 1988. The existing garage is considered to detract from the streetscape due to its dilapidated condition.

 

The proposal seeks a pitched roof garage with a maximum height of 3.6m. In addition to the non-compliance with the RDCP 2013 numerical controls as discussed below, the height of the garage will affect the setting of the heritage item as viewed from the street and result in some streetscape prominence.

 

Notwithstanding the above, there is a significant drop in topography between the two sites and an existing landscaped screening buffer between the sites. Further, the garage at 1 Dick Street is substantial in size, with a total height of 4.2m and width of 4.6m. After discussions with Council’s Heritage Officer, a reduction in the maximum height should be required to meet the objectives of Clause 5.10. It is considered that a maximum height of 3.2m will meet the relevant heritage conservation objectives whilst also providing some consistent scale between the two sites and adjacent neighbours. A condition has been recommended to reduce the maximum pitched garage height to 3.2m.

 

Accordingly, the proposal at 3.2m is considered to satisfy the objectives of Clause 5.10 in that it maintains the setting and prominence of the heritage item whilst also contributing positively to the streetscape.  

 

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

Section 6: Car Parking and Access

As discussed above, the proposed garage sought a pitched roof resulting in a maximum height of 3.6m along the boundary. The RDCP 2013 requires that the maximum building height for a pitched roof garage is 3m.

 

As discussed above, to satisfy the objectives of Clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012, the maximum roof height is required to be lowered. Discussions with the applicant resulted in a proposed height of 3.2m, which does not comply with the numerical controls. However, the non-compliance will not result in a dominate garage due to the slope from the street down to the existing hardstand; which is proposed to be retained. The adjoining garage at 1 Dick Street will remain visually prominent through the reduction in height. Adjacent to the site there are three prominent garages at 8, 10 and 12 Dick Street measuring around 3.05m in height. The garages are shown below:

 

Photo 1: 8 and 10 Dick Street, Randwick

 

Photo 2: 12 Dick Street, Randwick

 

Photo 3: Subject site with existing garage and garage located at 1 Dick Street

 

The proposed garage will provide increased amenity to the occupants and improve on the current impact of the existing dilapidated garage. With regard to the above it is therefore considered that the proposed garage at the reduced height meets the objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal seeks to vary the floor space ratio development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012. The application is considered to adequately justify the variation of the numerical standards and meets the relevant objectives. The existing built form and scale of the proposal is consistent with adjoining sites and results in minimal environmental impacts. The proposed garage at the reduced height of 3.2m is considered to result in a positive contribution to the streetscape whilst also protecting the setting and prominence of the adjoining heritage item. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to floor space ratio respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

Non standard conditions

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

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

 

b.     The skillion roof of the garage must be reduced to a maximum of 3.2m as measured from the ground level. Amended plans showing compliance are to be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA - Compliance Report - 114-114A Carrington Road, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D107/14

 

 

Subject:                  88-90 Botany Street, Randwick (DA/510/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/510/2012/A

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by increase in floor area, alteration to front and rear set backs, increase in boarding rooms from 30 to 34, one additional basement carpark space, deletion of disabled lift and provision of access ramp, internal reconfiguration, addition of first floor balconies and alteration to landscaping and external finishes. Original Consent: Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a 3 storey boarding house with 30 self-contained rooms, manager's residence, communal space with basement and ground level parking for 14 vehicles and associated works

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Linda Langov

Owner:                        Linda Langov

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview60979.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The proposes modifications involve:

 

·         Alteration to front and rear set backs by extending the building by approximately 1m to the eastern Botany Street frontage and approximately 1.5m to the western Botany Lane frontage.

·         An increase in the height of the approved development by 100mm for a small section of the building..

·         Increase in boarding rooms from 30 to 34 and the approved number of occupants from 55 - 66.   

·         A conversion of rooms 15, 22 and 23 from maximum 1 to 2 occupants.

·         An increase in the number of occupants wthin the development from 55 to 66 persons (plus manager).

·         Provision of 1 additional basement carpark space.

·         A relocation of the Communal Area 2 to the rear first floor area close the Botany Lane.

·         Internal alterations including deletion of disabled lift and provision of access ramp and other minor alterations.

·         Addition of first floor balconies and alteration to landscaping and external finishes.

·         Provision of an additional waste bin storage area.

 

The proposal will result in a slightly increased building envelope and overall small reduction in landscaped area.

 

The following comparison table is a summary of the changes between the original consent and the proposed modifications:

 

Item

DA Consent

Proposed S96

Building Footprint

631.66 m²

646.95 m²

Parking Structures (disabled and driveway/ramp)

86.18 m²

109.90 m²

Waste Bins Area

24.7 m²

33.67 m²

Total Structure/Paving

742.54 m²

801.31 m²

Planting on Basement slab

141.04 m²

162.76 m²

Total landscape

551.36 m²

492.59 m²

% Landscape

42.61%

38.07%

Area of proposed landscape planted above slab

551.36 m²

592.59 m²

 

The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is described as Lots A and B in DP 390271, Nos. 88 and 90 Botany Street, Kingsford.

 

The site is located within the Zone No. 2B (Residential B Zone) under RLEP 1998 (Consolidation) and the proposal is permissible with consent.

 

The site is located on the western side of Botany Street, between Middle and Meeks Streets. The land area and dimensions of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

53.21m

1293.9m²

Southern, side boundary

52.935m

Eastern, Botany Street boundary

24.38m

Western, Botany Lane boundary

24.385m

 

At present, the site is occupied by two single-storey detached dwellings.

 

Immediately to the north of the site is a 4-storey residential flat building (No. 86 Botany Street). To the south of the site is a 2-storey attached dual occupancy (No. 92-92A Botany Street). The rear boundary of the site adjoins Botany Lane. A child care centre is located at the south-western corner of Botany and Middle Streets (No. 80 Botany Street). The locality is predominantly characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and multi-unit residential developments.

 

Photographs of the site and surrounds

1. The subject site at 88-90 Botany Street (two single storey detached dwelling houses)

2. Adjoining dual occupancy development to the south at No. 92 Botany Street

3. Adjoining 4 storey residential flat building at No. 86 Botany Street to the north of the subject site. 

4. Development to the south along Botany Street.

5. The rear of the subject sites.

6. View north along Botany Lane at the rear of the subject site. The existing detached garages to the rear of the subject sites are shown on right (single storey with pitched roof) 

 

Consent History

 

DA/305/2011 – Consent refused for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part 2, part 3 storey boarding house containing 40 self-contained rooms accommodating up to 78 residents, 1 manager’s flat, 2 communal rooms, parking facilities, landscaping and associated works.

 

DA/510/2012 – Consent granted on July 23, 2012 for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a 3 storey boarding house with 30 self-contained rooms, manager's residence, communal space with basement and ground level parking for 14 vehicles and associated works.

 

The abovementioned application was granted under the previous RLEP, 1998. At the time, the application involved a number of departures from development standards and was locally controversial. Under the provisions of the current LEP, the proposal is effectively more compliant as some of the development standards, such as landscaped are and external wall height have been removed from the LEP controls.

 

This current application was also the subject of a pre DA meeting on November 27, 2013. The issues identified in the meeting are addressed in the body of this report.

 

Submissions

 

Nos. 163, 165 and 173 Botany Street, Randwick

 

Issues

Comments

Commercial development out of scale with the surrounding residential nature of the area.

Boarding houses are defined as a form of residential accommodation and permissible in residential zones. The built form is similar to a residential flat building and the associated impacts are acceptable.

 

4 extra bedrooms and only 1 extra car space provided.

The extra provision conforms to the requirements of the SEPP Affordable Housing 2009.

 

Number of potential occupants that could include backpackers and become a halfway house and neighbourhood trouble spot.

The proposed boarding house will not provide accommodation for backpackers, nor is it proposed to be used as a halfway house. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed boarding house is likely to become a “trouble spot”.

Maintenance issues likely due to lack of funds.

There is no evidence to support this claim.

Increase in number of rooms at the expense of surrounding livability.

The density of development permitted on the site has increased under the current planning controls by 0.1:1 allowing for a total density of 1.25:1. The proposed floor space ratio of 0.79:1 is well within the maximum allowable under the Affordable Housing SEPP and embodies sustainable impacts.

 

Traffic generation, noise impacts and excessive density of development will cause unacceptable amenity impacts.

The proposed amendments will not increase significantly the impacts associated with the approved development and are considered acceptable. The provision of 4 additional boarding rooms generates a requirement for 1 additional space which is provided. The acoustic report which accompanied the original application determined acceptable impacts and the proposed modifications will not significantly alter these impacts which are similarly sustainable.

 

Front balconies will cause noise impacts.

The physical separation of Botany Street from modest balcony areas to surrounding residents opposite could ensure acceptable impacts. Conditions are included in the original consent to take appropriate action should a nuisance occur.

 

92 Botany Street, Randwick

 

Size of proposed rear communal room is excessive is conducive to mass gatherings with uncontrolled and unmonitored noise and events.

The consent is conditioned to require ongoing compliance with the provisions of the Plan of Management which prohibits the playing of amplified or live music in communal areas. Notwithstanding an additional conditional of consent is included in the recommendation which will prohibit mass gatherings in the communal areas and reinforce the non-playing of amplified or live music to ensure reasonable mutual amenity is achieved.

 

Communal rooms between floors might lead to construction of internal stairs without consultation.

Sufficient powers exist under the EP and A Act, 1979 to take appropriate action should this occur.

 

Communal Rooms should be divided into 3 smaller spaces.

Sufficient conditions are contained within the consent to ensure that the use of the communal rooms as proposed will not likely cause unreasonable disturbance to surrounding residents.

 

Recommend inclusion of a 1600mm high screening adjacent to the manager’s open space to ensure reasonable privacy to adjoining owners.

Whilst not clear on the plan there is in fact a screen in accordance with the request of the objector. Therefore there is no need for modification of the consent in this regard and the concerns of the objector will be accommodated.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment:

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The proposed modifications which are detailed in the proposal section of the report essentially relate to the provision of an additional 4 boarding rooms and other minor modifications of acceptable impact.  The end development as a result of the proposed modifications is substantially the same as that as the development for which consent was originally granted. As such the relevant criteria is satisfied and the matter may be dealt with under section 96 (2) of the EP and A Act, 1979.

 

With respect to the minor excess in height above that permitted under the RLEP, having regard to the negligible impacts no objection is raised to this aspect of the proposal.

 

Notification and Consideration of Submissions:

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of this notification, a number of submissions were received and are addressed in the body of this report.

 

Floor space:

The proposed modifications result in a net increase in floor area of approximately 116m2 beyond that included in the original consent. The total proposed FSR of 0.79:1 remains well within the maximum allowable of 1.25:1 permitted under the SEPP Affordable Housing 2009.

 

Height:

The maximum height allowable for the site under Clause 29 of the SEPP Affordable Housing, 2009 and the RLEP is 9.5m. Through investigation by the building designer in preparation for construction, it has been determined that a portion of the pavilion in the north western section of the site will need to be raised by 100mm to accommodate the proposed metal roof structure  to a maximum height of 9.56m. Due to the location of the encroachment, the minor departure (60mm) will be indiscernible to the naked eye and will not change the corresponding shadow impacts to the dwelling house and private open space areas to the south at No. 92 Botany Street, Randwick.

 


The following images detail the minor extent of the departure:

Extent of minor  

non-compliance

 

Furthermore, as the proposed modifications as a whole result a development which is substantially the same as that originally consented to, the departure may be approved without the need for a departure under clause 4.6 of the RLEP in accordance with case law established in North Sydney Council v Michael Standley & Associates Pty Ltd LEC 10660/97.

 

Streetscape:

The proposal involves changes to the external envelope to Both Botany Street and Botany Lane. The changes in respect of the façade to Botany Street and Botany Lane coupled with a change in proposed external finishes are considered to result in enhanced presentation of the development to the particular streetscapes and will continue to embody adequate articulation compatible with existing and likely future built form of development on surrounding properties.

 

The following photomontages demonstrate the changes in appearance of the existing approved and modified (as proposed) developments.

 

 

Botany Street Images

Botany Lane Images

 

Overshadowing of Internal Spaces and Adjoining properties:

Concern was raised over the potential for the 2 additional rooms in the central section of the site and the relocated communal room No. 2 to create excessive overshadowing impacts on the internal landscaped open space area for occupants. In this regard, whilst the proposed modifications do cause additional overshadowing impacts, direct sunlight access to portions of this area will continue to remain available between 11am and 1.00pm during the winter solstice. Additionally, equinox shadows have been provided indicating that good levels of sunlight access throughout most of the year. Finally, the communal open space at the rear of the site will enjoy well in excess of 3hrs of direct sunlight in afternoon hours during the winter solstice.

 

The proposed development will have minor additional overshadowing impacts on surrounding properties. The only affected property is in fact, No. 92 Botany Street, Randwick. In this regard the shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed modifications will not increase shadows cast to northern facing living room window openings beyond those associated with the approved development. Moreover, the additional shadows cast on the rear private open space areas of the affected property will still retain more than 3 hours of direct sunlight to this area during the winter solstice. Additionally requested shadow information indicates that the proposed communal area 2 will not impact on the western façade of living areas at No. 92 until after 2.00pm retaining more than acceptable levels of sunlight access to this property.

 

It is finally noted that the submission from the owners of 92 Botany, whilst expressing concerns in relation to other matters which are addressed in the body of this report, did not raise concerns in relation to overshadowing.

 

The impacts associated with the proposed modifications are acceptable.

 

Acoustic Privacy

The original application included an acoustic report which was assessed and concluded acceptable acoustic impacts in association with the proposed boarding house.

 

Concerns have been raised from surrounding owners with regards to an unreasonable impact on acoustic privacy. The increase in the number of occupants within the development from 55 to 66 plus a manager is not expected to generate unreasonable additional impacts. The proposed modifications will relocate an approved centrally located primary outdoor recreation area adjacent to the northern boundary to the rear of the site adjacent to the laneway. Whilst not expected to generate unacceptable impacts, this is also considered a more appropriate location.

 

Use of the communal areas within the development to preclude gatherings of large groups and amplified music will be reinforced by way of an appropriate condition of consent which is included in the recommendation.

 

Visual Privacy

The proposed modifications include the following components aimed at ensuring minimal impacts on the visual privacy of surrounding properties:

 

·         The proposed new centrally located boarding rooms to the north will have full height privacy screens adjacent to the modest Juliet balconies (It is noted that no objections were received from the respective residential flat development to the north).

·         The balconies to rooms 14, 22 and 23 have an internal aspect and are screened appropriately to avoid the capacity to look into living areas of the dwelling at No. 92 Botany Street. 

·         Screening to a height of 1600mm of the communal landscaped area and manager’s open space area to living and POS areas of 92 Botany Street.

·         The window opening to the new communal area 2 with aspect towards 92 Botany Street is high set and will not pose privacy impacts to that property.

 

The proposed modifications will not exacerbate privacy impacts beyond those considered sustainable in relation to the original consent.

 

Car Parking:

The SEPP Affordable Housing 2009 requires the provision of (0.8) or 1 additional space in relation to the proposed 4 additional boarding rooms. The engineers made the following comments in regard to car parking:

 

Parking Comments

The additional 4 boarding rooms will increase the parking demand generated by the site by 1 carspace when adopting the rates specified in the SEPP (Affordable Housing). This has been provided in the basement car-park at the end of the driveway. A total of 16 vehicle spaces will now be provided on the site 14 in basement plus 2 at ground level..

 

One additional motorbike space and one additional bicycle space has also been provided in compliance with the SEPP (Affordable Housing) and are acceptable in their proposed locations in the basement.

 

Section 79c Assessment:

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

 

The proposal continues to be within the SEPP Affordable Housing controls inclusive well under the potentially allowable FSR controls within the SEPP.

 

Similarly compliance the proposed modifications result in a development that continues to be consistent with the relevant provisions of the RLEP 2012 and part C4 of the DCP relating to Boarding House Development. Any minor departures have been addressed in the body of the report.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications will have sustainable impacts on surrounding properties and are generally consistent with applicable planning controls and are supported.

 

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 510/2012 by increase in floor area, alteration to front and rear set backs, increase in boarding rooms from 30 to 34, one additional basement carpark space, deletion of disabled lift and provision of access ramp, internal reconfiguration, addition of first floor balconies and alteration to landscaping and external finishes at 88–90 Botany Street, Randwick in the following manner:

 

·       Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA01 – Basement floor plan

DC Design and EP Architects

March 2013

23 April 2013

DA001 – Site analysis plan

DA02 – Ground floor plan

DA03 – First floor plan

DA04 – Second floor plan

DA05 – Roof plan

DA06 – Sections 1 & 2

DA07 – Sections 3, 4 & 5

DA08 – Elevations east and west

DA08A – Detailed front façade sections

DA08P – Streetscape

DA09 – Elevations north and south

DA10 – Room types floor plans

Site Landscape Design - Issue B

Benjamin Landscape Pty Ltd

20 April 2013

23 April 2013

Statement of Environmental Effects

Burrell, George & Co

9 August 2012

10 August 2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi Dwelling

341196M_05

8 April 2013

 

As amended by the Section 96’A’ plans as detailed below.

 

Plan

Drawn By

Dated

Received

DA02

DC Design and EP Architects

March 2014

8 May, 2014

DA03

DC Design and EP Architects

February 2014

8 May, 2014

DA04

DC Design and EP Architects

February 2014

8 May, 2014

DA05

DC Design and EP Architects

February 2014

8 May, 2014

DA06

DC Design and EP Architects

February 2014

8 May, 2014

DA07

DC Design and EP Architects

February 2014

8 May, 2014

DA07A

DC Design and EP Architects

February 2014

8 May, 2014

DA08

DC Design and EP Architects

February 2014

8 May, 2014

DA09

DC Design and EP Architects

February 2014

8 May, 2014

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Multi Dwelling

341196M_06

8 April 2014

 

except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

·              Amend Condition No. 13 to read:

13.   Operational Waste Management provisions must be implemented in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the Section 96 application and stamped by Council 8th May 2014.     

 

·           Amend Condition No. 54 to read:

          Landscape Plan

54.   The Landscape Design by Benjamin Landscape Pty Ltd, dwg no. 12.30.1, issue E S96, dated 1.4.14, must be revised to comply with the following items:

 

a)     So as to avoid poor performance as well as future concerns over maintenance and upkeep, the turf shown for the internal courtyards and drying courts should be deleted and replaced with either low maintenance ground covers/plants; decorative pebbles/gravel; or; a combination of both.

 

·           Amend Condition No. 71 to read:

        Landscaping

71.   Prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date the completed landscaping was inspected, and that it has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Design by Banjamin Landscape Pty Ltd, dwg no. 12.30.1, issue E S96, dated 1.4.14, as well as any relevant conditions of consent, with the owner/s to implement strategies to ensure that it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

·           Amend Condition No. 81 to read:

81.   The following occupancy rates shall apply to the ongoing use of the premises:

Room Number

Maximum occupancy

 

Room Number

Maximum occupancy

 

01

Accessible - One (1) occupant

02

Two (2) occupants

03

Two (2) occupants

4

Two (2) occupants

05

Two (2) occupants

06

Two (2) occupants

07

Two (2) occupants

08

Two (2) occupants

09

Accessible - One (1) occupant

10

Managers room - One (1) occupant

11

One (1) occupant

12

Two (2) occupants

13

Two (2) occupants

14

Two (2) occupants

15

Two (2) occupants

16

Two (2) occupants

17

Two (2) occupants

18

Two (2) occupants

19

Two (2) occupants

20

Two (2) occupants

21

Two (2) occupants

22

Two (2) occupants

23

Two (2) occupants

24

Two (2) occupants

25

Two (2) occupants

26

Two (2) occupants

27

Two (2) occupants

28

Two (2) occupants

29

Two (2) occupants

30

Two (2) occupants

31

Two (2) occupants

32

Two (2) occupants

33

Two (2) occupants

34

Two (2) occupants

35

Two (2) occupants

 

 

Total

Maximum 65 boarders and 1 on site manager = 66 occupants

 

·           Add a new Condition  No. 94 to read:

94.   Any and all communal areas within the development including communal rooms and landscaped open space areas are not to be used by large groups or the playing of live or amplified music at any time.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D108/14

 

 

Subject:                  37 The Corso, Maroubra (DA/649/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/649/2014

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Proposed strata subdivision of the site into two lots

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr P Confos

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 16353

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview65560.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed strata lot sizes have a shortfall greater than 10% to the 400sqm minimum lot size standard required for each lot under Clause 4.1(3) of the RLEP 2012.

 


Proposal

 

Strata subdivision of the approved semi-detached dwellings under DA/720/2010. The proposed lots:

·      Lot 10 = 273.4sqm with a frontage of 6.68m

·      Lot 11= 274.3sqm with a frontage of 6.68m

 

Site

 

The site is on the south-west side of The Corso between Duncan St and Marine Parade, Maroubra. It has a 13.365m frontage, averages 41m deep and is 548m2. The land has a north-easterly aspect and there is a cross-fall of 2.8m from the back corner of the site to the opposite front corner. There are semi-detached dwellings to the south-east and north-west. The local area is dominated by free-standing and semi-detached homes. The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential and it is inside the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area specified in the Randwick LEP.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

1.      Minimum allotment size - subdivision

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Lot 10 – 37 The Corso

Lot 11 – 37a The Corso

Proposal

273.9m

274.3m

Variation

126.6m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 31% shortfall.

125.7m2 below the development standard this equates to a proposed 31% shortfall.

 

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

 

2.      Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

 

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of Minimum Subdivision Lot size standard, it is considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances. With specific reference to the R2 zone objectives and the fact that the site is already strata subdivided an assessment is carried out as follows:

 

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

 

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. There is no physical development sought other than that which has been approved, and the sites will be similarly configured in terms of layout to other properties in the surrounding area containing semi-detached housing. The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts as a result of the development. Moreover the fact that the development on site has undergone a comprehensive assessment against the relevant controls and objectives for low density development under the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 under DA/720/2010 means that it will ensure that the subdivision will neither result in any appreciable adverse impact on the amenity of existing properties or provide for speculative development incentives for the subdivision of small sized lots ensuring the low density nature of the zone is maintained. See also further discussion of subdivision under objective c further below.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed lot sizes are of a similar size of immediately adjoining sites, and where sites are larger these contain single detached dwellings and not considered a suitable basis for reference. Pertinent to this application, and as shown in figure 2 above, those lots in the surrounding street networks that contain old semi-detached dwellings are in fact sited and configured on similarly sized lots to those being sought as part of this application. Therefore, having regard to the applicant’s submission and the objectives for subdivision, it is considered that the proposed subdivision both in terms of layout and building design in combination with existing strata subdvision on site will be more respectfull of the subdivision pattern in the locality.

 

In terms of development opportunities, as previously indicated an assessment of the approved develompent has already been undertaken under the previous DA and the proposed strata subdvision does not affect the relevant matters for consideration. It is most important to note that the fact that the existing site is already separately tenured means that the proposal would not set a precedent for permitting substantial shortfalls to lot sizes for more recent dual occupancy developments within R2 zoned land, which were generally permitted on smaller lots to assist with housing affordability and intra family arrangements.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the minimum lot size standard. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

•    To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

·      The proposed subdivision maintains the existing strata tenure on site in so far as no additional lots are proposed as part of this application

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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


Comments:

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the minimum lot size standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

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.

 

Section 2.1 Minimum lot size and frontage

The proposed development is subject to the DCP minimum 12m lot frontage control. The subject site has a frontage of 13.365m and the proposed development provides only 6.68m frontages for each strata allotment.  An assesssment against the following objectives is therefore required:

 

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

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

 

The approved develompent was subject to a 15m minimum lot frontage control for the attached dual occupancy and despite the shortfall to this control the approved development was considered suitable for the site in so far as it enabled dwellings of adequate dimensions, configuration and amenity performance. In addition, the proposed frontage is also generally consistent with the frontage widths of other allotment frontages in the vicinity. Notwithstanding, the fact that the development is already strata subdivided ensures that the no additional tenure is created within the locality and will therefore ensure no appreciable increase in demand for services or developer incentive than that which currently exists.

 

Overal, characteristics such as the existing strata tenure on site and the approved development does not alter the configuration of the development from street level esnuring a greater level of consistent with examples of older type semi detached dwelilng on similarly sized frontages in the vicnity without creating any potential to transform the low density zone of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

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

 

This development application is referred to Council because there is an Exception to the RLEP development standards for minimum lot sizes that exceed 10%.

 

The site is on the south-west side of The Corso between Duncan St and Marine Pde, Maroubra. It has 13.365m frontage across the whole of the site, and the rpoposed lots are similar in size and frontages to other lots in the vicinity. Moreover, there existing site is already strata subdivided and the proposed reconfigured strata side by side represent no additional tenure created on site and is more consistent with the predominant subdivision pattern in the vicinity containing semi-detached dwellings to the south-east and north-west. The land is zoned R2 residential and it is inside the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and the proposal will not alter the character of the area in so far as a development has already been approved on site and considered these aspects.

 

Overall, the application is accompanied by well founded Exception to the development standard and the proposal will be compatible with the character of the subdivision pattern, does not unacceptably impact on neighbouring dwellings or create any potential for speculative development incentives for the subdivision of smaller sized lots given the unique characteristics of the site already being strata subdivided.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.1(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to minimum allotment sizes,, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 649/2014 for Strata subdivision of the approved dual occupancy development, at No. 37 The Corso, Maroubra, subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUING OF A STRATA CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to Council or Strata certifier issuing a ‘Strata Certificate’.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for strata subdivision.

 

Termination of Existing Strata Scheme

2.     The existing strata scheme operating on the site under SP 16353 shall be terminated. In accordance with Part 3 Sec 51A(4) of the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973 termination of the strata scheme requires the consent of the Council. An application form (Form 15ST) must therefore be obtained from Land Property Information NSW and submitted to Council for signing prior to endorsement of the strata subdivision plans.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 37 The Corso, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D109/14

 

 

Subject:                  14 Clifton Road, Clovelly (DA/636/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/636/2014

Author:                   Anthony Betros, Planning Consultant - ABC Planning Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations to the front of the existing dwelling to accommodate a new front carport and front boundary fence

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mr I T Smith

Owner:                        Mr I T Smith, Mrs C J Smith

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Development Application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the applicant is related to a Randwick City Councillor.

 

Proposal

 

Approval is sought for the erection of a single carport and fence to the front of the subject property. The car space is 5400mm in length and has a width of 3150mm. A sliding gate provided secure access behind a new front fence and gate. Partial demolition of the front verandah is proposed to allow for compliance with AS2890.1. The carport has a pitched roof which is compatible with the pitched roof of the house whilst the front fence includes timber slats above and in between masonry piers. The height of the front fence is 1200m.

 

Site

The site is located on the western side of Clifton Road between Boundary Street to the north and Burnie Street to the south. The has a frontage of 9.45m to Clifton Road, site depth of 40.235m and site area of 380.2sqm. The site contains a 2-storey detached dwelling house. The site has no rear lane access.

 

390

Figure 1: Front elevation of the existing dwelling at 14 Clifton Road

 

391

Figure 2: Neighbouring dwelling to the south which has a car port forward of the building line

394

Figure 3: More carports within the front building line are located to the south

 

 

393

Figure 4: Neighbouring residential flat building to the north which has garages and parking within the front building line

 

 

395

Figure 5: Other carports and garages forward of the front building line along the eastern side of Clifton Rd opposite the site

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick LEP 2012

Zoning

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under the RLEP 2012. The proposed works are permissible and satisfy the zone objectives as it improves the amenity of the subject dwelling and maintains the amenity of surrounding residents.

 

Building Height

The proposal is well under the permissible height.

 

FSR

The proposal reduces the FSR from 0.5:1 to 0.49:1 and remains permissible.

 

Randwick DCP 2013

The proposed front fence is 1200mm in height and is compliant with the fencing provisions under Part 7 of Randwick DCP 2012. The fence complies with the more specific provisions under Parts 7.1 and 7.2 of the DCP and the materials and finishes are compatible with the streetscape.

 

The DCP includes specific controls in Section 6.2 i & ii) which permit a single width carport in front of the front façade within the front setback areas only where;

 

•      There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking;

•      The site has a significant slope with the dwelling being elevated above the        street level;

•      The carport will not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the    surrounding areas;

•      The carport location will not pose an undue risk on the safety of pedestrians;    and

•      The carport will not require the removal of significant landscape elements that enhance the streetscape, such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls.

 

The proposed car port has been suitably designed to complement the dwelling house. The single car port is compliant with the provisions of the DCP under Part 6 of the DCP which permits single car ports on sites less than 12m, (site frontage being 9.45m) and where there is no alternative feasible location. The retention of landscaping in the front setback for the greater proportion of the front setback ensures that the treatment of the front setback is appropriate.

 

As indicated in the photos earlier in the report, the streetscape of Clifton Road contains numerous examples of structures forward of the building line. The proposed carport will therefore be consistent with the dominant character of the street.

 

The dimensions of the car space and carport are close to compliant and allows for off-street parking on the site. A single on-street car space will be retained noting that there will be no loss of on-street parking due to the site frontage of 9.45m being between driveways to the north and south of the subject site.

 

The timber framed carport with metal deck roofing is compatible with the slatted fencing and the materials and finishes of the subject dwelling.

 

The proposal therefore has no adverse streetscape or amenity impacts and will improve the amenity of the subject property by improving security and off-street parking.

 

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 carport and front fence improves the amenity of the subject property in a manner which is compatible with the host dwelling and the broader streetscape along both sides of Clifton Road.

 

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. 6361/204 for the partial demolition of the existing verandah to allow for a single carport and new front fence, at No. 14 Clifton Road, Clovelly, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Clifton Road Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

  


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M6/14

 

 

Subject:                  State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 Design Quality of Residential Flat Development Review

Folder No:                   F2013/00173

Author:                   Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner      

 

Introduction

 

This report seeks Council’s endorsement of the attached draft submission on the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65- Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) Review, exhibited until 31 October 2014. SEPP 65 and the accompanying Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) aim to improve the design quality, amenity and safety of residential flat buildings across NSW.

 

The SEPP 65 Review proposes a number of changes to the Policy, together with a new Apartment Design Guide-which replaces the existing RFDC. The changes are designed to increase the supply of well designed, affordable apartments to introduce greater consistency in the adoption of basic design principles, and to encourage more innovative design. Housing affordability and development feasibility are key drivers of the Review.

 

The draft submission generally supports the SEPP 65 Review, noting that the Policy has improved the quality of the built environment in Randwick City, and created awareness amongst design practitioners and assessors alike of the imperative need for high quality design. Changes supported include the extension of the SEPP’s application to mixed use and shop top housing developments (in addition to residential flat buildings), the new structure and layout of the ADG, and updated visual privacy and universal housing guidelines.

 

A number of matters are noted, including the new performance based approach which allows a level of flexibility in the design process, and minimum sizes for apartments including studio apartments. Concerns are raised about reduced car parking provision for areas in close proximity to light rail and bus stops, and reduced solar access and deep soil provision.

 

The key points and issues in the Review documentation and Council’s submission are summarised below.  The draft submission together with comments from the DRP is found at Attachment 1.

 

Background

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No 65- Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) and the accompanying Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) were introduced in 2002 in response to concerns by the then Premier regarding the design  quality of residential flat buildings in NSW. The Policy framework applies to residential flat buildings that are three stories and above and containing more than 4 dwellings.

SEPP 65 aims to improve the design of residential flat buildings by identifying 10 design quality principles that must be applied to the preparation of Local Environmental Plans (LEPs), Development Control Plans (DCPs) and in determining Development Applications (DAs). It requires that such developments be designed by a registered architect and also enables the Minister for Planning to establish SEPP 65 Design Review Panels to provide independent expert advice on the design quality of residential flat building proposals.

The accompanying RFDC provides detailed guidance to architects, planners and decision makers residential flat building design as well as appropriate development controls in Council DCPs for such uses. The RFDC sets broad parameters on how the 10 design quality principles contained in the SEPP can be achieved in new proposals, focusing on location, size, scale, appearance and amenity of residential flat buildings.  The RFDC is a widely used document by industry and Local Government.

In 2011 the State Government initiated a comprehensive review of SEPP 65 and the RFDC to ensure they remain current, relevant and useful resources for Government and industry. Council made a submission on the SEPP 65 Review Discussion Paper in 2012 raising a number of matters including recommending that the SEPP be expanded to encompass other forms of development (not just residential flat buildings); that the RFDC be given less weight where Council’s DCP has established detailed built form controls; and the need for a more robust monitoring regime post DA to ensure that the SEPP 65 design intents are reflected in the final construction.

SEPP 65 Review

On 23 September 2014 the State Government released draft amendments to SEPP 65 together with an Apartment Design Guide (ADG) (which updates and replaces the RFDC) for public comment. Key changes introduced include:

·           Extending the Policy application to include mixed use and shop top housing developments in addition to residential flat buildings.

·           Relaxing or reducing car parking requirements for developments situated in accessible locations. SEPP 65 developments situated within 400 metres of a light rail or bus stop will no longer be required to provide car parking, whereas for sites located between 400 and 800 metres of a light rail stop or railway station, car parking provision is to be in line with either the requirements contained in the RMS Guide for Traffic Generating Development or the council’s Development Control Plan (DCP), (whichever is lesser).

·           Allowing councils to appoint Design Review Panels (independent experts who advise councils on design quality of residential flat buildings).

·           Introducing greater flexibility through a performance based framework comprising performance criteria, acceptable and alternative solutions. Applicants can also opt to submit designs that do not meet acceptable or alternative solutions.

·           Allowing key elements of the Apartment Design Guide to prevail over council DCP requirements (e.g. visual privacy, solar access, balconies and private open space etc.).

·           Including a minimum size of 35m2 for studio apartments (other minimum apartment sizes are already specified).

·           Reducing deep soil requirements from 25% (Council’s DCP) to a range of 7-20% depending on allotment size.

·           Relaxing solar access requirements by allowing up to 15% of apartments in a building to not have access to sunlight (currently 10%).

·           Clarifying that developments subject to SEPP 65 need to comply with the building sustainability index (BASIX).

 


Council’s Submission

Council’s draft submission recognises that SEPP 65 has made a significant impact on the quality of residential flat development in Randwick City, and created awareness amongst design practitioners and assessors alike for the imperative need for high quality design. It notes that much of this can be attributed to regular input and advice from the SEPP 65 Joint Randwick and Waverley Design Review Panel (DRP) on key residential flat building proposals, as well as feedback on other forms of development that fall outside the parameters of the Policy.

 

Key issues raised in the draft submission include:

 

·           Support for extending the SEPP to encompass mixed use and shop top housing, with further recommendations to broaden its applicability to all buildings containing more than three dwellings, Seniors Living developments, boarding houses, serviced apartments and student accommodation (including university residential colleges).

 

·           Support for councils being granted delegation from the Minister to appoint Design Review Panels, noting that the ADG templates and guidelines on meeting procedures will afford greater consistency, efficiency and certainty in the design review process.

 

·           Support for the new ADG structure and layout, recognising that it provides a simpler, clearer and informative format, together with recommendations to improve the graphic presentation and readability of the document.

 

·           Acknowledgement that the new performance based framework will afford greater flexibility in the design process, particularly in relation to complex sites with diverse characteristics. It further notes that allowing for the consideration of design options other than acceptable or alternative solutions may result in unnecessary complexity in applying the ADG. 

 

·           Support for new visual separation distances (measured from the property boundary) that provides for a clearer and more equitable approach.

 

·           Concerns regarding the proposed reduction in deep soil provision (from 25% to 7-20% dependent on allotment size), particularly given previous storm water runoff and flooding issues in Randwick City.

 

·           Concerns that proposed car parking reductions have been largely driven by development feasibility and affordability factors, with no commensurate design benefit in the ADG (e.g. increased deep soil provision).  Issues raised include lack of demographic analysis and evidence base to demonstrate how savings (from not providing car parking) will be passed onto buyers as well as potential flow on effects for local on street parking and traffic. Recommendations include:

 

o   Requiring that parking reductions be implemented in conjunction with on street parking restrictions and be limited to developments containing a majority of studio/ one bedroom apartments, and sites where parking provision is already constrained (e.g. sites fronting classified roads with no rear access).

o   That the RMS Guidelines be reviewed to ensure they are up to date and reflect parking and traffic conditions across different areas; and

o   Further consideration be given to the variances in public transport efficiency for different areas.

 

·           Concerns that proposed solar access requirements (where up to 15% of apartments will not be required to have sunlight access) may result in greater reliance on artificial lighting, reduced energy efficiency and compromised amenity.

 

·           General support for apartment sizes being included in the ADG, however noting that smaller apartments may not necessarily lead to greater housing affordability, particularly in desirable inner city areas with high land prices; and

 

·           Support for universal housing provisions, recognising the aging population, and community desire for social inclusion and aging in place.

 

Given the exhibition concluded prior to Council’s reporting cycle (31 October 2014), the draft submission (found at attachment 1) has been submitted to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment, noting that any additional matters raised by Council and Council’s resolution will be included in the final submission.

 

The DRP have also provided comments largely technical in nature on key aspects of the SEPP and the ADG, which is found as an appendage to the draft submission. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Direction 2a:      Regularly consult our community on their needs.

Outcome 3:       An informed and engaged community.

Direction 3a:     Effective communication methods and technology are used to share information and provide services.

Direction 3c:     A community involved in shaping and enhancing our City.

Outcome 4:        Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Outcome 6:       A liveable City.

Direction 6d:     Strategic land use framework provides for our lifestyle changes and for continuing, yet low rate of growth across our City.

Outcome 7:        Heritage that is protected and celebrated.

Direction 7a:      Our heritage is recognised, protected and celebrated.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

SEPP 65 and the accompanying RDFC have played an instrumental role in improving the design quality of residential flat buildings in Randwick City.

 

The review of the Policy is timely, to ensure it remains a current, relevant and useful resource for Government and industry. It is integral that the revised SEPP 65 policy framework continues to maintain its intended purpose, which is to espouse best practice design advice to guide future residential flat development as well as other major development types across the State.

 

The attached draft submission to the SEPP 65 Review is submitted for Council’s consideration and endorsement.

 

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That the Council endorse the submission to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment on the State Environmental Planning Policy No 65- Design Quality of Residential Flat Development Review.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Draft SEPP 65 Review Submission

 

 

 

 


Draft SEPP 65 Review Submission

Attachment 1

 

 

 

Description: RCC_Inline_RGB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick City Council

Draft Submission:

 

SEPP 65 Review

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 October 2014

Introduction

 

Randwick City Council welcomes the Department’s initiative to review the State Environmental Planning Policy 65- Design Quality of Residential Flat Development (SEPP 65) and Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC), to take into consideration issues raised by stakeholders since its initial implementation, in 2002.

 

To date the application of SEPP 65 and accompanying RFDC has had considerable success in Randwick City, making a significant impact on the quality of the built environment, and creating awareness amongst design practitioners and assessors alike for the imperative need for high quality design. The SEPP has been instrumental in improving the design and amenity of apartments across our City and much of this can be attributed to regular input and advice from the SEPP 65 Joint Randwick and Waverley Design Review Panel (DRP) on key residential flat building proposals, as well as feedback on other forms of development that fall outside the parameters of the Policy.

 

The Review is notably driven by the economic imperatives of development feasibility and housing affordability, reflected in key amendments such as reduced car parking requirements. While these factors are integral considerations in the planning and development process, it is questioned whether SEPP 65 is the appropriate tool to achieve the State Government’s broader housing delivery goals. As it stands, development feasibility and housing affordability are beyond the scope of SEPP 65, which appropriately should continue to provide for a policy framework espousing best practice design advice and good examples to guide future residential flat development.

 

Council would like to reiterate its support for a State-wide mechanism to achieving good design, pertinent given that higher density residential developments will play a larger role in satisfying future housing requirements. Notably good design will be an important mechanism in ameliorating community concerns about higher density residential developments, required to serve population growth and changing demographic characteristics. To this end, the Policy should be retained to serve its intended purpose, which is to achieve a high level of design quality, amenity, safety and sustainability in residential flat buildings across NSW and also extended to include other related major development types.

 

Accordingly the following comments are provided below. Additional feedback from the SEPP 65 Joint Randwick Waverley DRP is found in appendix 1.

 

Comments

 

SEPP 65 Legislation

 

Application of the SEPP

The Review introduces a new clause (clause 4) to SEPP 65, clarifying that it also applies to mixed use and shop top housing developments of three or more storeys (in addition to residential flat buildings). This is consistent with the current SEPP which broadly defines residential flat buildings as buildings over three storeys with four apartments or more, which theoretically also encompasses mixed use and shop top housing.

 

Comments

The clarification of the SEPP’s intended application is supported. Including references to mixed use and shop top housing removes ambiguity as to what constitutes a residential flat building, creates consistency with terminology used in comprehensive Local Environmental Plans (for those uses), and provides greater certainty to applicants and stakeholders as to the SEPP’s application.

 

While the new clause is a step in the right direction, it is considered, nevertheless, that there is scope to better define and broaden the SEPP’s applicability. For instance, the revised framework is ambiguous as to whether SEPP 65 applies to serviced apartments and boarding houses, which are separately defined in the Standard Instrument, yet nonetheless can take the form of a residential flat building and are often converted to residential uses over time. Further, inconsistency is noted between the definition of residential flat building in the Standard Instrument (which applies to developments containing three or more dwellings) and the SEPP itself which applies to buildings with four or more dwellings.

 

Council in its previous submission on the SEPP 65 Review Discussion Paper (letter dated 22 February 2012) recommended that the SEPP’s applicability be further extended,  recognising  that the built environment comprises a wide range of building typologies which would also benefit from a robust design process. Notably in the case of Randwick City, relevant pre development applications, affordable housing developments and large scale developments that otherwise fall outside the scope of the SEPP 65 definition for residential flat buildings have consistently been referred to the DRP for expert input, which has resulted in good quality design and amenity outcomes for the City.

 

On this basis, it is contended that SEPP 65 should be further transformed to provide a design excellence framework for all major development types including but not limited to, all buildings containing more than three dwellings, Seniors Living developments, boarding houses, serviced apartments and student accommodation (including university residential colleges). This could be achieved by espousing a common set of principles that are integral to good design, complemented with a series of codes for a variety of residential, commercial and institutional development categories.

 

Design Review Panels

A number of amendments have been introduced pertaining to Design Review Panels (DRPs), including allowing councils to appoint their own panels, removing the maximum requirement of 5 panel members and inclusion of model operating procedures, meeting minutes and advice templates in the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) (which is to replace the RDFC).

 

Comments

As an overarching comment, Randwick City is supportive of the proposed changes to SEPP 65 which are aimed at promoting the take up and consistency of DRPs across NSW.

 

Randwick City was the first council in NSW to adopt an independent DRP which has been in operation since 2003, when SEPP 65 was first drafted. The Panel has played a key role in providing independent expert advice on a variety of development proposals, which has been instrumental to achieving high quality design outcomes in the Local Government Area.  In recognition of the benefits of the DRP involvement early on in the design and assessment process, the proposed amendments are considered a positive step in the right direction.

 

The following comments are accordingly made with respect to DRPs under the proposed framework:

 

·           It is agreed that councils should have the power to establish and appoint Panel members, however the draft SEPP provisions do not suitably reflect this proposed procedural change. Clause 19 should accordingly be amended to make it clear that councils can appoint their own Panel, and have the discretion on Panel constitution, member selection and detailed operating procedures under the Minister’s delegation.

·           The range of templates and guidelines on meeting procedures in the ADG are strongly supported as it will afford greater consistency, efficiency and certainty in the design review process.

·           Urban planners have been omitted from the list of professionals that can constitute Panel membership (clause 21); however no justification has been provided for this amendment.

·           Allowance should be made for the Panel to finalise the minutes following the meeting to ensure adequate time to reflect on design proposals and comprehensively review and consider plans/documentation. As it stands the ADG recommends that minutes be drafted during the meeting, which may not afford adequate time to fully consider the proposal.

 

Apartment Design Guide

 

Structure and Layout

The Apartment Design Guide (ADG) updates and replaces the RDFC, providing a new structure that includes numbering of clauses, more decisive language and revised diagrams.

 

Comments

The proposed new structure and layout of the ADG is commendable on the basis that it provides a simpler, clearer and more informative format for stakeholders to follow. Of particular note is the inclusion of clause numbers which will facilitate ease of referencing in development assessment and reporting when compared to the current RDFC.

 

A key matter raised relates to a number of diagrams in the ADG, which appear to contradict the stipulated performance criteria and if translated to a built form would result in poor amenity outcomes for occupants.

 

For instance, attention is drawn to the diagrams depicting subterranean apartments which offer poor amenity in terms of solar access and ventilation (figs 2C.4 and 3A.5). It is particularly concerning that subterranean apartments are graphically represented in a document that is supposed to espouse design quality and amenity. 

 

Similarly, concerns are raised regarding the diagrammatic floor plans depicting cross flow ventilation options (fig 4Q.10 on page 115). It is questioned whether cross flow ventilation could actually be achieved for a number of these options, particularly given the proposed configuration and layout of the southern apartments. Council’s DRP has also raised concerns regarding the accuracy of a number of diagrams (refer to appendix 1).

 

A number of suggestions are made to further improve the graphic presentation and readability of the ADG, summarised as follows: 

 

·           Include a north point to all diagrams and maps.

·           Number each appendix on the top right corner of each page, consistent with the format employed for other sections of the ADG.

·           Clearly show wall openings in all diagrams. 

·           Number each alternative design solution.

·           Amend font colour inconsistencies (e.g. 4N Apartment layout).

 

Flexibility

A key change between the RDFC and the ADG is the shift towards greater flexibility by providing a framework based on performance criteria and acceptable and alternative design solutions (formerly Rules of Thumb).

 

Performance criteria define what the resulting outcome should achieve, whereas acceptable solutions provide possible design responses to achieve the performance criteria. Applicants are permitted to submit alternative design solutions in relation to issues such as solar access, ventilation, deep soil and open space, and balconies, provided it achieves the relevant performance criteria. The ADG also notes that a third option has been established, whereby applicants can put forward a completely different design feature or method (that does not meet the acceptable/alternative design solution), provided it achieves the relevant criteria.

 

Comments

The introduction of a performance based framework will afford a level of flexibility in the design process, recognising the difficulty in establishing blanket controls across diverse site contexts while also encouraging innovation.

 

Greater flexibility is particularly integral in the context of complex, highly urbanised inner city locations with historical subdivision patterns such as the northern suburbs of Randwick City. In certain instances, the strict application of the numerical RDFC Rules of Thumb has been problematic, such as where blocks have an irregular shape or less than desirable solar orientation. Similarly, the RDFC separation distances can place constraints on designing for narrow infill or land locked sites adjacent to older flat developments.

 

Notwithstanding the benefits of a flexible approach, concerns are raised that the performance based framework (allowing for the consideration of design options other than acceptable or alternative solutions) is a complicated way of applying the ADG and does not create an incentive to meet the acceptable or alternative solutions, as applicants may simply default to the third option to justify design preferences viewed as being economically more desirable. 

 

Council’s DCP acknowledges the difficulty in applying standard numerical controls across a variety of site contexts, recognising that each property has different characteristics based on their unique combination of site conditions, size, aspect and location.  The DCP affords a level of flexibility where variations to the controls are considered, limited to those circumstances where a more superior planning and urban design outcome can be suitably demonstrated.

 

To address the issue of the ADG performance based framework being potentially exploited in the development process, it is recommended that the Policy be amended to:

 

·           Clarify that design proposals (other than acceptable or alternative solutions) will only be considered if it can be clearly demonstrated that a high quality design and amenity outcome will be achieved, together with supporting criteria; OR

·           Omit the third category altogether, leaving design options to be assessed under the ADG acceptable and alternative solution framework. 

 

Performance Criteria 3F - Visual Privacy

The ADG proposes that visual separation distances between sites be shared equally, by measuring the separation distance from the boundary. This differs from the RDFC which provides a blanket separation distance that is measured from the wall of the existing development.

 

Comments

The proposed visual separation distances as measured from the boundary are strongly supported (Fig 3F.3, page 63). Using the boundary as the point of measure provides a clearer and more equitable approach, particularly in those circumstances where the existing neighbouring building does not comply with the separation distances in the first instance.

 

Performance Criteria 3E- Deep Soil

The ADG includes a revised set of numerical deep soil provisions, which are based on the site area and expressed on a sliding scale. The proposed deep soil provisions are lower than Council’s DCP.

 

Comments

The ADG requires a limited deep soil provision ranging from 7-20% of the site area depending on allotment size (Table 1, page 60). This is in contrast to Council’s DCP for medium density development which requires that 25% of the entire site area be allocated for deep soil provision. The RDFC provides an alternative approach requiring that 25% of the open space component of a site be allocated for deep soil provision.

 

Concerns are raised that the ADG requirements will result in an overall reduction in deep soil provision, with scope for further reduction through the alternative solution process. This is further compounded by the fact that the performance criteria include paving and pathways in the deep soil calculations, which further reduces the already inadequate requirement.

 

The provision of deep soil zones on a site offers a number of valuable environmental benefits including promoting the growth of trees, improving the microclimate and reducing storm water runoff. Its importance is even more magnified in built up urbanised areas where trees and vegetation provision is often limited.

 

In the context of Randwick City, over the last 10-15 years, an increase in urban development has resulted in a reduction in site permeability. Council’s DCP controls on deep soil were accordingly introduced due to the resultant increase in storm water run-off and flooding issues in the LGA.

 

In recognition of these factors, it is strongly recommended that the proposed deep soil provisions be reviewed to:

 

·           Increase the level of provision commensurate with site area.

·           Provide more significant amounts of deep soil for sites located outside local and strategic centres; and

·           Remove pathways and footpaths from the deep soil calculations.

 

Performance Criteria 3J- Car Parking Requirements

A key change to the SEPP Policy framework is the introduction of greater flexibility for applicants to reduce or remove car parking spaces, where there is sufficient accessibility to public transport (i.e. if the site is located within 400m of a light rail stop) and where there is market demand to do so (Table 2, page 70).  The rationale behind this change is to improve housing affordability on the basis that cost savings (from not providing car parking) would be passed onto buyers. Notably car parking cannot be used for the grounds of refusal under clause 30 of the SEPP.

 

Comments

From a sustainability perspective, the proposed relaxation of car parking requirements appears reasonable, on the basis that it would encourage greater utilisation of public transport and minimise reliance on private vehicles. This is particularly relevant to Randwick City, where the City to South East Light Rail network will introduce a high capacity and sustainable mode of public transport that will assist in easing pressure on Sydney’s roads. It is noted that approximately 23% of R3 zoned land and 35% of business zoned land in Randwick City is located within 400 metres of a light rail stop and thus potentially affected by the proposed car parking reductions (i.e. sites will no longer be required to provide car parking for SEPP 65 developments).

While the encouragement of public transport usage is paramount,  it appears that the proposed parking reductions have more of an overt economic focus (as opposed to sustainability), with less emphasis on  flow on amenity impacts such traffic and on street parking as well as design outcomes.

 

Development feasibility and housing affordability appear to be the overarching drivers for the proposed car parking reductions, and while these matters are important planning considerations, the appropriateness of integrating such into a design quality framework is questioned. The emphasis on economic drivers over design principles is illustrated by the fact that a reduction in car parking provision has not been commensurate with improvements in design/amenity. Specifically there is no increase in deep soil or landscaped area provision in the ADG that would typically follow a ‘freeing up’ of the site from constraints by basement car parking structures. Further, the blanket requirements do not take into account variables such as the size and scale of the development and local traffic and parking conditions.

 

Declining housing affordability is a critical theme in Randwick City where housing costs are amongst the highest in NSW. This issue is compounded by the fact that the LGA has high numbers of students, key workers and an aging population – key groups typically requiring more affordable housing options. Declining housing affordability is a complex issue and one which requires careful planned involvement and intervention in the housing market. It is questioned, nevertheless, as to whether car parking reductions in SEPP 65 developments close to public transportation, would have a tangible impact on housing affordability in Randwick City.

 

In particular, the SEPP 65 documentation fails to interrogate both qualitatively and quantitatively how a reduction in car parking will translate to genuine savings for buyers, particularly in desirable inner city areas with high land prices.  More importantly, it is questioned whether SEPP 65 should be used to justify a reduction in car parking purely for the sake of housing affordability, particularly when there is a glaring absence of any commensurate design benefit in the ADG.

 

It is particularly concerning that an evidence base (such as demographic analysis) has not been provided in the supporting documentation to justify the omission of car parking requirements near light rail and bus stops. For instance, consideration should be given to the types of people who reside in residential flat buildings such as young families who may require private transportation. While other Policy frameworks such as the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, also contain reduced car parking requirements, in such cases it can be justified on socio economic grounds that occupants are less likely to own private vehicles. The same assumption cannot be made for residents of all SEPP 65 developments.

 

Council’s DCP currently contains a suite of car parking provisions that are based on minimums. While the rates provided are higher than the RMS and neighbouring councils, a level of flexibility is integrated into the controls whereby variations can be considered where suitably justified (e.g. site and building constraints, proximity to public transport, the size and scale of the development etc.). This framework allows Council to consider the circumstances of each case on a merit basis, factoring in prevailing local on-street parking and traffic conditions, as well as the provision of integrated sustainable transport options. 

 

The proposed amendments default the provision of parking to Council through the likely increase in pressure for on street parking, such that public streets become defacto car parks for private developments. In this regard, the ADG in effect transfers the obligation for car parking provision from developers to councils and places the burden on existing residents, which is considered inequitable and unreasonable.  Placing additional demands on on-street parking places pressure on Council to put the limited parking restrictions in place and then police them. This disadvantages local residents and places additional cost and burden on Council.

 

Should the ADG car parking reductions be retained, it is integral that the following matters be addressed to ensure implementation does not create adverse flow on effects in local areas: 

 

·           Ensure that parking reductions are only implemented in conjunction with on street parking restrictions i.e. require that no residential parking permits be issued to residents of new SEPP 65 developments.  This would go some way in limiting the use of public streets for private car parking purposes.

 

·           Limit the application of reduced car parking requirements to developments that contain a majority of studio/ one bedroom apartments, as well as sites where parking provision is already constrained, such as properties fronting classified roads with no rear lane access.

·           Review the RMS Guidelines to ensure they are up to date and reflect local traffic and parking conditions.

·           Consider the efficiency and frequency of public transport networks and the variations across different Council areas. For instance, inner City areas tend to be serviced with more efficient public transport services than middle and outer ring areas. Weekend timetabling is also an issue as frequency differs markedly to weekday peak hour services.

Performance Criteria 4L – Solar and Daylight Access

The ADG proposes revised solar access provisions which are generally comparable to the RDFC and Council’s DCP, except with respect to the maximum number of apartments in a building permitted to have no direct sunlight.

 

Comments

The ADG proposes that a maximum 15% of apartments in a building be permitted to have no direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm in mid-winter. This is in contrast to both the RDFC Rules of Thumb and Council’s DCP for medium density residential development, which limit the number of apartments in a building with no solar access to 10%.

 

Concerns are raised that the application of the subject solar access performance criteria will result in a net increase in the number of apartments having no access to sunlight. Consequently more apartments will be introduced on the market that have greater reliance on artificial lighting, reduced energy efficiency as well as compromised amenity through poorer conditions to live and work.

 

It is acknowledged that equitable access to sunlight varies across different urban contexts. For highly urbanised areas the shape and orientation of allotments can, for instance, make it difficult to achieve optimum solar access. On this basis, it is recommended that the solar access performance criteria be amended to provide a range suited to the urban context. For instance a 15% threshold may be more suitable for dense inner city sites, whereas the RDFC limit of 10% be retained for suburban contexts that may not face similar site constraints.

 

Performance Criteria 4N1- Minimum Apartment Sizes

The ADG introduces minimum sizes for a variety of apartments which are consistent with the Rules of Thumb in the RDFC. Apartment sizes that are smaller than the minimums may also be considered as an alternative solution, provided the usability and functionality of the space can be demonstrated.

 

 

Comments

The proposed minimum apartment sizes in the ADG are considered reasonable, provided they are supplemented by stringent performance criteria on apartment layout and can demonstrate a high level of amenity will be maintained (Table 6, page 103). It is interesting to note that while the proposed apartment sizes are consistent with the RDFC Rules of Thumb for ‘affordable apartments’, they are considerably smaller than the range of ‘better design practice’ apartment layouts provided in the same document.

 

The SEPP supporting documentation suggests that smaller apartments will have a positive impact on housing affordability. Smaller apartments also offer advantages in terms of ecologically sustainable development through the use of fewer raw materials for construction, and less energy for heating and cooling.

 

While the benefits of smaller apartments in terms of sustainability is recognised, the question is raised as to whether mandating smaller ‘affordable’ apartment sizes will make a tangible impact on housing affordability. Developers may take advantage of the minimum sizes (and potentially propose even smaller apartments through the alternative solution process), however there is no certainty it will translate to reduced market prices.

 

Anecdotal evidence from Council’s DRP suggests that up to 90% of DAs are already using the minimum affordable housing apartment sizes (thus achieving greater yield on sites), which are then being sold off at market rates. This may have the flow on effect of pushing up the price of the existing stock of apartments (that are larger than the proposed thresholds), as being more desirable and providing better amenity, and also impacting on housing choice by encouraging a concentration of a certain type of apartment development.

 

Performance Criteria 4N1- Minimum Size for Studio Accommodation

The Review proposes to introduce a minimum floor area of 35 m2 for studio apartments, noting that other minimum apartment sizes are already specified in the RDFC. 

 

Comments

The inclusion of a minimum floor area of 35m2 for studio apartments is considered reasonable and would provide consistency in the ADG document given that other minimum apartment sizes are already specified (Table 6, page 103).

 

It is noted that studio apartment accommodation is becoming an attractive housing option, particularly given the rising cost of inner city locations such as Randwick City. This further emphasises the importance of design quality and environmental sustainability to ensure that smaller sized dwellings are not compromised on amenity such as cross flow ventilation.

 

An issue worth noting is that the difference between a studio and a one bedroom apartment is simply the addition of a wall. Therefore the inclusion of minimum sizes as a performance requirement would preclude the opportunity for the future conversion of a studio to a one bedroom apartment, unless an alternative solution is sought. More concerning, developers may apply for Section 96 modifications to convert studios to one bedroom apartments by using the third option of arguing their own design methods to justify the variation. This could result in a short cut to the creation of substandard one bedroom apartments that are of the size of a studio.

 

These scenarios illustrate that mandating a studio size has the potential to impact on flexibility, adaptability and innovative design. To address this issue, consideration should be given to establishing ranges for each apartment category e.g. studios 35-45m2. These sentiments are echoed by the DRP (see appendix 1). 

 

Performance Criteria 4G-Universal Housing

The ADG proposes to include a 20% threshold for universal housing as an acceptable solution, recognising that this form of housing design that is easy to move around and safe to enter is of benefit to all members of the community.

 

Comments

The inclusion of a 20% threshold for universal housing in the ADG is supported (Table 5, page 88). Universal Housing (which incorporates accessible features such as levelled pathways and entries, hobless showers and wider corridors) offer an array of social, environmental and economic benefits to local communities including:

 

·           Meeting mobility challenges associated with aging, physical disabilities and changing life circumstances.

·           Promoting sustainable development by extending the usability of a dwelling to meet ‘whole of life needs’.

·           Adding to the diversity of housing choice.

·           Reducing costs associated with retrofitting dwellings; and

·           Potentially reducing health care costs.

 

Demand for universal housing is set to intensify in Randwick City and across Metropolitan Sydney resulting from the aging population and community desire for social inclusion and aging in place. In recognition of these factors, the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) now contains controls to increase the amount of universal housing in the LGA, requiring that all ground floor dwellings of medium density developments incorporate universal design features in line with the Federal Government’s guidelines. The proposed thresholds for universal housing in the AGD are therefore aligned with Council’s approach, and if applied consistently will facilitate a take up of accessible housing across NSW.

 

Appendix 1

 

Joint Randwick Waverley Design Review Panel Comments

 

SEPP 65 – Draft Amendments - Review

 

 

Issue

Commentary

1

Functional Status of ADG

ADG is cited as a development standard within CL6A SEPP 65 [emboldened word below]

CL 6A

Development control plans cannot be inconsistent with Apartment Design Guide

The provisions of a development control plan under Division 6 of Part 3 of the Act, whenever made, are of no effect to the extent to which they aim to establish standards with respect to any of the following matters in relation to residential flat development that are inconsistent with the standards set out in the Apartment Design Guide:

(a) visual privacy,

(b) solar and daylight access,

(c) common circulation and spaces,

(d) apartment layout,

(e) ceiling heights,

(f) balconies and private open space,

(g) natural ventilation,

(h) storage.

 

1)     Does this mean these items are the only areas to be considered as development standards within the ADG? or

2)     Is the entire document to be considered as a development standard, or particular parts?

The question arises because:

·         the ADG is intended to be treated as 'flexible' and remain as ‘guidelines’ rather than being 'prescriptive' standards of measure, and 

·         the document itself contains many inconsistencies.  Therefore, one interpretation of what might be a standard in one instance may be inconsistent with another, and is dependent upon what components of the physical document are considered to be the control standard.

For instance, if we look at Part 4, the categories are no longer set out with identified objectives - there is now a 'Description' moving straight to the 'Performance Criteria' and “Acceptable Solutions’.  However, the ‘Acceptable Solutions’ are often open to differing interpretations of particular words that would impact their application,  they can be overridden by suggested 'Alternative Solutions', which in turn are also open to other solutions not necessarily contained within the ADG.  This taken to a logical end could result in there not being any applicable development standard from which to test.

Adding to the grey area of which components of the ADG are considered to be development standards is that selected images often do not match the descriptions attributed to them.

Would this enable their citation in a DA as being an exemplar contained within the ADG (if the whole document or section is considered a development standard) although it may not in fact satisfy the performance criteria as stated?

2

Document Inconsistencies

Images generally throughout the document do not demonstrate the annotated descriptions.

Of more concern is that many do not reflect the Performance Criteria or Acceptable Solutions, and at worst case, in fact demonstrate the opposite of what is stated in Performance Criteria.

3

Universal Design

The ADG should be advocating all RFBs achieve the performance of Universal Design. 

The requirement of only 20% of any development to meet Silver level (not Gold, Gold+ or Platinum) is manifestly inadequate.  It is noted that none of Indicative Layouts within Section 4N demonstrate Universal Design.

It is interesting to note that the Universal Design unit example is approximately 121m2 which is already less than the minimum unit size for a 3-bedroom unit under the RFDC. 

We are currently seeing around 90% of DAs already using the minimum Affordable Rental Housing unit sizes which are not being assessed under the SEPP ARH but are being sold at market.  Therefore the reduction in unit size to the affordable rates within the ADG will do nothing to increase housing affordability.

There are structural changes required to the tax system that will address housing affordability.  Developers will sell these smaller units for the same price they are currently charging and will achieve greater yields on sites.  This will push up the price of existing housing stock where it meets current RFDC unit sizes (and if efficiently planned) as being more desirable and providing better amenity.

This link demonstrates affordable housing with very high levels of amenity particularly in communal areas. 

http://www.universaldesign.com/general-content/case-studies/1500-richardson-apartments.html

Landcom is promoting Universal Design although using AS4299 Adaptable Housing as its performance base for all future housing. 

http://www.landcom.com.au/downloads/uploaded/FINAL_Universal%20Housing%20Design%20Guidelines%20Fact%20Sheet_6507_740d.pdf

Therefore, it would seem ADG Section 4G Universal Universal Design as quoted below should be applying to all apartments within all RFB development.  It is equitable to ALL potential users and marks a shift in the idea of people remaining in apartments over the long term, not just a short term gap before moving to a detachable house.

Universal design is an international design philosophy that enables people to carry on living in the same home by ensuring that apartments are able to change with the needs of the occupants.

Universally designed apartments are safer and easier to enter, move around and live in.

They are of benefit to all members of the community, from young families to older people, their visitors, as well as those with permanent or temporary disabilities.

Incorporating universal design principles in apartment design is a step towards producing a robust, flexible housing stock. It ensures that simple and practical design features are incorporated into new buildings that would be difficult and costly to retrofit at a later date.

Universal design is different to adaptable housing which is governed by Australian Standard 4299 and is specifically designed to allow for the future adaptation of a dwelling to accommodate the occupant’s needs.

In addition to the specific aims of universal design and adaptable housing, flexible apartment design is also desirable to allow buildings to accommodate a diverse range of lifestyle needs such as different household structures, live/work housing arrangements and future changes in use.

4

Interpretation of Performance Criteria

Words such as ‘minimize’ or ‘unavoidable’ have no reference point from which to determine whether Performance Criteria have been met. 

For instance, if an inappropriate/poorly performing building typology is proposed, the design may have minimized adverse conditions relative to the poor building typology and comply with a specific section of the ADG but if tested relative to a superior typology the adverse conditions could have been avoided altogether. 

5

Floor Space Ratio

Support the emphasis within the Description that FSR is a ’theoretical maximum capacity’.

6

Status of ADG over LEPs and DCPs

 

Generally supported.  However, there needs to be a mechanism for Councils to develop controls that address issues specific to their LGA.  These may be issues to do with amalgamation due to particular lot and block patterns (one LGA may have shallower lots with wider frontages, while another may have narrow lots that are overly long) which have specific issues for building typology; topography where one LGA is slightly undulating or flat and another is steeply sloping with adverse solar aspect; landscape characters; or whether an LGA is primarily densely urban or others where the character is increasing density in a suburban infill not a major centre and where there may not be adequate accessible/strategically placed public spaces which may impact upon deep soil provision.

7

Graphic Representation

All plans and sections should have openings included not be shown as solid walls.

North points should be provided on all plans or plans oriented so that up-the-page is north.

 

Draft Apartment Design Guide

Item

Comment

Priority

Overview

The skills of architects, urban designers and landscape architects are essential in the detailed consideration of apartment building proposals.

It is essential that all panels which review apartments include these skill sets, including large projects referred to the JRPPs. 

This expertise also needs to be mandated rather than optioned within membership of JRPPs.

Urgent

Relationship to Other Documents

A new grey area of legal status emerges with the ADG.

It is unclear what components of the ADG are considered development standards as the ADG is a guide as described p9 yet within the SEPP the ADG is given status as development standards.

Urgent

INTRODUCTION

About this guide

 

 

Statutory relationship to SEPP 65.

It is important that the requirements of the ADG prevail over LEP and DCP controls, when they are more onerous, but not when specifically dealing with site-specific conditions which the ADG is not equipped or intended to address.

ADG asserts that this ‘guide’ will “deliver buildings that…” – How can a guide assure delivery?

Urgent

How to Use This Guide

Achieving Performance Criteria

This does not clarify the development standards to be applied as cited under the SEPP due to the level of flexibility.  This equates to any design solution providing CL 6A of the SEPP is achieved.

Urgent

Design Quality Principles (DQP)

Clear.  These may become the development standards rather than the Performance Criteria as they are contained within the SEPP.

 

Relationship of SEPP65 to ADG

This matrix clearly demonstrates the relationship of the ADG to the 9 Principles.

3J Car parking has a ‘high’ level of interaction to Principle 5 Landscape deep soil, in a suburban street setting with deep soil planting, but not along a mixed use high street.

4B Ground Floor apartments have a ‘high’ level of interaction with Principle 5 Landscape.

4N Apartment Layout has a ‘high’ level of interaction with Principle 2 Built Form and Scale

Revise / review

 

PART 1 IDENTIFYING THE CONTEXT

1A Apartment Building Types

Narrow Infill Apartments

 

 

 

 

Narrow Infill Apartments

This typology has been problematic all over Sydney and in fact is specifically described by Bob Carr in the Preface of the RFDC as prompting the need for design quality in apartment development.

The image does not represent narrow infill development as it is a corner site. 

The graphic as presented is deeply flawed as a typology. 

This needs to be amended to provide:

·            Setbacks that enable more (rear) landscaping for tall trees,

·            a sliding ratio of site length to acceptable building length, and

·            a typology that clearly shows a deep articulation between the component fronting the street and the ’tail’

This is urgently needed to avoid infill development that transposes the problems of the 3-storey walkups to a greater scale of 5, 8 and 10 storeys.

Urgent

Tower Apartments

The image does not show the podiums as described.

Amend

1B Local Character and Context

Of the four common settings described only Suburban Neighbourhoods reference “landscaped setting”.

For the ecology, climate, happy socialisation and sustainability of our increasingly urbanised city, “landscaped setting”, deep soil landscapes and trees are important considerations in the design of quality Urban Neighbourhoods.

Amend

1C Precincts and Individual Sites

Precincts

Floor space of a precinct plan should not include public domain. 

 “When determining the floor space of a precinct plan, the net floor space is based on the whole of the site area including streets and open spaces. “…

There may be a typo in p27 – replace the word net with gross (consistent with Figure2 D.3)

“Through the precinct plan design process and testing of proposed building envelopes against site constraints, alternative solutions to some of the ADG performance criteria may be appropriate.”

These may need to be more onerous than the minimums within the ADG and cited within SEPP 65.  Councils need a mechanism to deal with this that holds statutory weight.

 

Amend

PART 2 DEVELOPING THE CONTROLS

2A Primary Controls

Figure 2A.1

The figure does not adequately demonstrate controls that allow for deep soil enough to support new large trees.  The trees are already established and are to be retained.  The setbacks of the new development do not permit any new trees as demonstrated by the area needed to retain the existing trees.

Urgent

2B Building Envelopes

There should be a ratio of boundary length to permitted wall length before either a separate building is required, or clear and deeply articulated building mass is demonstrated to address scale particularly in suburban infill and interface site with lower density development.

Urgent

2C Building Height

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2C.4 – Steep Sites

It is vital that site-specific building envelopes be provided particularly for steep sites or changing topography.  Again this may require adjustments to precinct density for specific sites that are not able to be addressed in the standard LEP instrument and may require more onerous performance criteria than the ADG contains.  Councils have the experience of their LGA and need a mechanism to deal with site-specific issues.

Uniform building heights over extensive areas can have a deadening effect on urban places. Varied building types, lot area and dimensions can introduce a beneficial variety to building heights.

Corner locations, for instance, should reinforce the public domain structure with additional height.

Fig 2C.4 needs to be amended urgently so that subterranean units are not indicated.  There is a reasonable bonus to additional height across the site for 12-18m but amenity and failure of waterproofing for units below existing ground level is appalling.

Urgent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Urgent

2D Floor space Ratio

Description that FSR is a ‘theoretical maximum capacity’ is highly supported.

Council controls need to define mixed use as a component of FSR for clarity.

 

2E Building Depth

Figure 2E.1

Consider that 18m is too deep. Recommend 16.5 max.

Fig 2E.1 to include ADG dimensions 12-18m across the building depth of the residential component.

Amend

2F Building Separation

Figure 2F.4 taken literally is poor built form outcome. Consider 3 small diagrams or 3.0 in table as suffice, rather than section?

Remove “where site conditions allow” – final objective

Amend

2G Street Setbacks

Replace “road” with “street”. Otherwise supported.

 

2H Side and Rear Setbacks

Requires a minimum setback to preserve consolidated landscape and deep soil within blocks. Otherwise supported

 

PART 3 SITING THE DEVELOPMENT

3A Site analysis

Figure 3A.5

Generally supported. 

Fig 3A.5 Do not include subterranean residential units as appropriate.  These achieve appalling amenity.

 

Urgent

3B Orientation

Supported.

 

3C Public Domain Interface

There is no limit to the transparency/opacity of fences or walls to the street. Consider 50% transparency, for example

Overall height in also not limited. Consider a maximum above finish ground level

4. Consider more stringent wording surrounding vents, substation, plant and the like to be “not visible”

7. Reword to include “dual address”

 

3D Communal and Public Open Space

Communal open space should be commensurate with the density of the proposed development.  25% is insufficient as an all-encompassing amount. 

Urgent

 

Performance Criteria  3D-2.1

 

“Facilities are provided for a range of age groups where size permits…”

Delete words “where space permits”.  All developments need to provide communal space whether at ground level or podium or roof.  Where space ‘does not permit’ indicates proposed building footprint or density is inappropriate. 

Amend

 

Figure 3D.3 Communal Open Space

Nominated area shown on this diagram is less than 25% inconsistent with Performance Criteria 3D-1.1

Amend

3E Deep soil Zones

Table 1

 

 

 

 

3E Deep soil Zones

 

Table 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Criteria    3E-2.1

Deep soil landscape areas are inadequate.

Outside of Strategic Centres and Local Centres more significant amounts of landscape including deep soil landscapes should be provided for ecology, climate, happy socialisation and sustainability.

Larger sites should be required to provide a higher

Percentage of consolidated landscape due to economies of scale.

The percentages should be revised as follows –

<650m2 - 20%; 650-1500 m2 - 25%; >1500 m2 - 30%, >1500 m2 and significant tree cover - 35%.

Tall trees contribute to visual and climate amenity.

Require trees comparable in height to the building. One large tree for every 50 m2 deep soil landscape.

Delete point 1.  All paving and paths should be excluded from the deep soil calculation as this further reduces the already inadequate requirement by 10%.

Urgent

 

 

 

 

 

Urgent

 

 

 

 

 

Urgent

3F Visual Privacy

 

On Fig 3F.2, 3m minimum separation between a non-habitable room and a blank wall seems unnecessarily large.

 

A paved pathway could be as little as 2m wide and be edged by a secondary bedroom above ground level. The blank wall open to the sky above can reflect light beautifully to the interior. (OA+MW Banksia example)

Consider 3F.4 as separate diagrams or table only. Form shown is poor.

 

3G Pedestrian Access and Entries

Supported

 

3H Vehicle Access

Figure 3H.3 is a poor example. Width of impermeable surface is excessive. Remove image and reference to offset alignment. Direct alignment will produce minimum

 

3J Bicycle and Car Parking

Table 2 and Reference in Performance Criteria 3J-1.1

Figure 3J.8

Clarification required for car parking requirement of RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Development as this appears to be a survey of car movements rather than providing car parking requirements.

 

Fig 3J.8 while demonstrating a solution for above ground car parking, the unit typology appears to present a non-functional living area.

 

1.     Reduced on site car parking rates are supported. Consider increasing distance to station to 800m

2.     Limit the number of car spaces in areas well served by public transport.

3.     Shared secure parking area for bicycles, motor bike and scooters is also supported.

On site visitor car parking is not supported. Visitor spots should not be required. If so, ratio should consider 0 for smaller buildings (<30 apts) and 1:30 or less above that threshold.

 

Clarify

 

 

 

 

Amend/

clarify

PART 4 DESIGNING THE BUILDING

Configuration

4A Apartment Mix

The reduced minimum apartment sizes will reduce housing choice as developers will take advantage of the reduced sizes but will not reduce market prices. 

Anecdotal evidence supports this.  Current DAs in many LGAs are proposing affordable housing unit sizes but are not being lodged as affordable housing schemes. 

The ADG setting a lower threshold size will remove housing choice by encouraging a concentration of unit developments that are likely to have poorer amenity than is currently achieved under the RFDC.

It is essential this section consider “ageing in place”

Urgent

4B Ground Floor Apartments

Figure 4B.3

Figure 4B.3 is the same as that used in Figure 3J.8.  This is a poor example as the living space is either non-functional with no room for a dining table or more than two chairs, or if SOHO, there is no provision for a kitchen area.  Delete and replace with a functional example.

Amend

4C Facades

Section does not reinforce “high quality, enduring materials” consider.

 

4D Roof design

 

 

Performance Criteria  4D-2

Supported.  Standard Instrument LEP allows Councils to approve roof elements that could also function as shade structures for communal spaces where maximum building height is proposed.

Acceptable Solution 2.  Add: acoustic privacy.

 

4E Landscape design

Table 3

Table 3 – requires opinion of landscape architect

Larger sites should be supporting more trees commensurate with the scale of development.  All sites to require 1 large tree/50m2 at minimum.

Landscape opinion needed

4F Planting on Structures

 

Table 4

Evidence needed to demonstrate the long term maintenance costs of maintaining green walls, electricity and water usage. Also whether water seepage has been an issue.

Table 4 – requires opinion of landscape architect

Clarify/

amend

4G Universal Design

 

Figure 4G.1

 

Figure 4G.4

 

 

 

 

Performance Criteria 4G-1

This should be the benchmark of the ADG.

 

Fig 4G.1 is much larger than any of the minimum unit sizes.

 

Fig 4G.4 contradicts the minimum unit sizes by up to 35m2 for 3-bedroom unit in the example shown and demonstrates the inadequacy of the minimum unit sizes proposed.

 

Requirement of 20% of total apartments achieving (silver) universal design is manifestly inadequate. 

The description of universal design is what ALL units should be delivering under design quality and is consistent with the government policy to provide real housing choice with the intention that people are able to remain living in apartments over the long term – rather than the current expectation that it is a short-term solution before moving to a detached house. 

This inadequate requirement equates to only 20% of ALL proposed development being able to cater to the needs of ALL age groups and changes in life situations.  This will not change behavior to consider apartment living as a long-term option.

Where the Department is resistant to amending this as seems to be the case, it is suggested that a minimum of 50% of every development meets the requirements of universal design – (following the lead of Urban Growth’s policy change).  This would deliver 50% of units as ‘affordable’ with the remaining flexible and more attractive to a greater number of people.

Adaptable units would then form 10% of each of these.

Urgent

 

Urgent

 

 

Urgent

 

 

 

 

Urgent

4H Adaptive reuse

Supported

 

4J Mixed use

Supported

 

4K Awnings and signage

Supported

 

Amenity

4L Solar and Daylight Access

 

 

 

Performance Criteria  4L-1

Performance Criteria  4L-4

4L-1 Acceptable solution 5 re: number of units receiving no sunlight: Amend to provide a range suited to urban context.  Dense inner city situations may be appropriate to allow 15% but on suburban sites this is not acceptable and should retain the RFDC limit of apartments receiving no sunlight at 10%.

Add additional point:

7. No habitable rooms are to be excavated more than 1 metre below natural ground level.

Acceptable solution 1:

Interpretation of ‘unavoidable’ needs to be clarified as an inappropriate building type may result in ‘unavoidable’ lightwells, whereas the lightwells may be avoidable where an alternative building typology is proposed.

Urgent

 

 

 

 

 

Urgent

 

Urgent

4L Alternative Solutions

After last paragraph:

Where buildings face within 20 degrees east or west of south, apartments should maximise dual aspect, or have narrow depth for single aspect apartments.

Replace ‘or’ with ‘and have narrow depth’:

And add: ‘and provide large areas of glazing to maximize indirect light.’

 

Urgent

4M Common Circulation and Spaces

 

 

Performance Criteria  4M-1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4M.6

Add to the last paragraph of the Description:

and building character.’

 

Acceptable solution 4 : remove “where possible”, and specify exceptions such as basement car parks.

Fully internalized common lobbies are generally avoidable unless an inappropriate building typology is proposed or yield is excessive.  Internalised common circulation spaces are unpleasant spaces, do not achieve performance criteria of creating meeting places, achieve poor amenity, poor residential character and place constant high energy demands on the life cycle of apartment buildings.  This also unnecessarily increases carbon emissions and building costs over time.

Fig 4M.6 does not meet Performance Criteria 4M-1.1 which requires a maximum of 8 unit off a circulation core.  This figure shows 10.

 

 

 

Amend

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amend

4N Apartment Layout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Criteria  4N-2

 

Figures 4N.2, 4N.5 and 4N.6

Apartment sizes could be given as a preferred range to suit various locations and pricings as well as promoting efficient urban consolidation and inclusions such as sunrooms or studies.

Studio 35-45m2, 1-Bed 50-65m2, 2B 70-85m2 and 3B 90-110m2.

This is still less than the RFDC and less than needed for Universal Design.

Acceptable solution 1: supported but Fig 4N.3 also needs to be referenced 4O-1 as well as 4O-3.

 

Dimension lines do not match with internal faces of walls.  Either dimension is slightly wrong or apartments are larger than dimensioned. 

Urgent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amend

4O Ceiling Heights

 

Performance Criteria  4O-1

 

 

Performance Criteria  4O-1

The ceiling height to room depth of Fig 4N.3 is clear and appropriate but also needs to be referenced 4O-1.

Acceptable solution 1:  3.3m FL-CL height for ground floor uses in mixed use zone is insufficient and inconsistent with    Fig 4O.1 that nominates 4.2m. Replace 3.3m in table with 4.2m.

Acceptable solution 1:

Add:

“3.  Ceiling heights are measured clear of all services and structure.”

Amend

 

Amend

 

 

 

Amend

4P Private Open Space and Balconies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Criteria  4P-1

Generally supported, however, more generous balcony sizes add more amenity to smaller units.

Figure 4P.6 does not demonstrate a combination of solid and transparent balustrade materials.

Figure 4P.10 does not demonstrate any soffit detailing other than the top floor roof.

 

Performance solution 7: Add

“and fully waterproofed.”

 

Consider

 

 

Amend

 

 

Amend

 

 

 

Amend

4Q Natural Ventilation

 

 

 

 

Performance Criteria 4Q-1

All apartments should be cross-ventilated to maximise amenity, minimise energy use and reduce reliance on air conditioning. As a concession to urban consolidation and in support of small footprint apartment towers, 80% of apartments should be required to have dual orientation cross ventilation.

 

Acceptable solution 3:

5% of area of serviced room as opening size needs to be confirmed as adequate by a mechanical engineer. Clarification necessary so that window types provide differing amounts of ‘Effective Openable Area’ such as sliding versus awning.  Reference Glossary?

Urgent

 

 

 

 

 

Amend

4R Storage

Storage should be calculated in addition to apartment sizes not included in already tight room sizes.

Urgent

4S Acoustic Privacy

Figure 4S.5 does not demonstrate acoustic seals.

Amend

4T Noise and Pollution

Performance Criteria  4T-2

Figure 4T.5 does not demonstrate acoustic louvres.

None of the Acceptable solutions in 4T-2.1 include noise barrier planning principles.  This should be included.

Amend

Amend

Performance

4U Energy efficiency

Performance Criteria  4U-2

Supported status of BASIX.

Acceptable solutions 1:

Add specific reference to common circulation spaces.

 

4V Water Management and Conservation

Generally support.

L’scape opinion needed

4W Waste Management

Figure 4W.3 does not demonstrate a compost bin or a community garden.

Amend

4X Building Maintenance

Performance Criteria 4X-1

4X Topic description to include “and minimise likelihood of building defects”.

Acceptable solution 1: Add an additional point:

“no external wall of an apartment is to have direct contact with soil above the proposed floor level.” 

Extensive UNSW research has identified water penetration as a leading cause of building defects.  Ensuring there is a physical separation of walls of habitable rooms from soil will alleviate problems with substandard waterproofing either due to poor construction detailing, poor construction methods.  Water penetration is very costly to remediate, affects building value over time, and is preventable.

Figure 4X.3 has expanses of rendered painted walls requiring scaffolding to maintain which is inconsistent with Performance Criteria 4X-2.3 and 4X-3.1

The ability of materials (i.e concrete) to age in an enduring manner without being painted should be encouraged. The rendering or painting of high quality base material imposes an ongoing monetary and environmental cost on body corporates.

Amend

 

Urgent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amend

PART 5 DESIGN REVIEW PANELS

5A Function of design review panels

Supported.

 

5B Membership and Establishment

Supported. Needs to be extended to require that consent authorities including PACs, JRPPs include equal representation of similar design expertise.

 

5C Roles and Responsibilities

Supported.

 

5D Meeting Procedures

Supported.

 

5E Templates

Supported.

 

APPENDICES

App1 Site Analysis Checklist

Supported.

 

App2 Pre-Development Application Checklist

Supported.

 

App3 DA Documentation Checklist

Supported.

 

App4 Apartment Building Example Schemes

Schemes mostly do not achieve minimum deep soil areas – they are significantly higher than ADG minimums which support the need to increase deep soil requirements within 3D and 3E of the ADG.

Amend

Glossary

Is there a need to clarify the meaning of words such as ‘minimise’, ‘unavoidable’

Consider

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                        11 November 2014

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M7/14

 

 

Subject:                  Affordable Housing Research Grant

Folder No:                   F2004/07991

Author:                   Teresa Mok, Manager Community Planning & Development      

 

Introduction

 

The Australian Centre for Excellence for Local Government (UTS Sydney) and Centre for Housing, Urban and Regional Planning (Adelaide University) is proposing to apply for an Australian Research Council (ARC) grant in the November 2014 round. 

 

The study will examine key questions around local government and housing. The Council has been invited to participate in this research project given the increasing role local councils across Australia have had to play to address community needs.

 

Participating in this joint research project is a very cost effective way to have housing affordability issues facing local councils identified with possible solutions documented in a research report that is conducted by highly regarded academics.

 

This report recommends that should the funding grant be successful (decision to be made in June 2015), the Council makes a joint payment of $5,000 per year over 3 years (totalling $15,000).  The research outcomes should provide officers with access to data, and assist the Council in making informed decisions about its affordable housing assets into the future.

 

Issues

 

The study will examine key questions around local government and housing.  The participating universities are inviting councils across Australia to join them in this research project.  Research topics will include but not limited to the following:

 

·           Increased pressures on the budgets of local government and rising expectations that local government will contribute to both growing community aspirations and the policy agendas of federal and state  governments;

·           The strong community and governmental focus on environmental sustainability, including in housing and urban development;

·           The need to identify new policy solutions and responses to apparently entrenched problems such as problems of housing affordability, the funding of infrastructure and service integration; and,

·           Shifts in population processes with an ageing of the Australian population overall and the concentration of growth in particular localities.

 

The details of this research project were discussed with other local council representatives on 26 September 2014. The aim of the two universities is to raise a total of $300,000 over 3 years (including in-kind contribution) as this will enable ARC to match this amount, and conduct a $600,000 project ($450,000 cash and $150,000 in-kind). 

 

 

 

 

Since 1996, Randwick City Council has been involved in implementing a range of initiatives designed to retain and encourage affordable housing in the locality. A critical housing issue facing Council is that families on lower incomes are being priced out of the local property market through a process commonly referred to as gentrification.  As the pool of affordable housing continues to shrink, many residents on low to moderate incomes are forced to move away from established family and social networks, and places of employment.  This makes it difficult for people to live closer to ageing family members and to provide assistance.

 

The situation also impacts on local businesses and services that rely on a ready supply of workers earning basic and moderate wages, such as shop assistants, cleaners, health and community care workers, bus drivers and hospitality staff. This in turn will have broader implications for the sustainability of town centres and employment nodes.

 

In response, the Council has been implementing an Affordable Rental Housing Program. To date fourteen dwellings are tenanted to key service workers with two dwellings expected to be transferred to Council by year end.  Transfer of a further four dwellings will occur when construction is completed.  Managed by a community housing association, the Council’s Affordable Rental Housing Program is self-sustaining, and continues to generate an annual net income.  Surplus funds are accumulated in the Council’s affordable housing account to be used for affordable housing purposes.

 

There hasn’t been an extensive housing affordability research undertaken in the local government context (especially in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney) for more than ten years.  If Randwick Council agrees to become a joint partner in this research project and contribute cash of $15,000 ($5,000 per year), this amount can be funded through its Affordable Housing account.  The Council in adopting the Randwick City Affordable Housing Strategy (December 2007) has agreed to the following action:

 

·           Return any surplus income generated by the program to the Council’s affordable housing account for future upgrading, new capital works or related purposes. (Randwick City Affordable Housing Strategy, page 28)

 

Conducting research to address housing affordability issues in the LGA falls within the above definition. Proper research is essential if Council is to make responsible, informed decisions about its affordable housing assets into the future.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6 :      A liveable City.

Direction 6e:      Housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community is enhanced.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The direct financial impact to Council is $5,000 per year, to be paid over 3 years, totaling $15,000.  If endorsed, this amount will be funded from the Council’s affordable rental housing account.

 

Conclusion

 

Participating in this joint research project is a cost effective way to have housing affordability issues facing local councils identified, with possible solutions documented in a research report conducted by highly regarded academics, Chris Paris, and Professor Andrew Beer.

 

The information from this research project will provide valuable evidence based information and help Council make informed decisions about housing issues as well as issues relating to future urban development.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     the Council participates as a joint partner with UTS Sydney and Adelaide University in applying for an Australian Research Council  grant to conduct a research project on the issue of local government housing affordability.

 

b)     should the funding application for the joint research grant be successful (decision to be made in June 2015), the Council will make a contribution of $5,000 each year over 3 years (totalling $15,000). 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil