Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 2 December 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                                                                                          2 December 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, 2 December 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 - 11 November 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

Planning Matters

 

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

 

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

 

D110/14    263-265 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/366/2014).................................... 1

D111/14    47-53 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/414/2014)...................................... 27

D112/14    4R Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay (DA/633/2014).................................... 51

D113/14    34 Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/407/2012/A)...................................... 57

D114/14    4/104-112 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/694/2014)............................... 67

D115/14    63 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra (DA/616/2014)............................................ 71

D116/14    6 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (DA/439/2014)......................................... 81

D117/14    54-56 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/277/2014)..................................... 123

D118/14    5/96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick (DA/683/2014).................................. 135

D119/14    77-85LH Cooper Street, Maroubra (DA/730/2014).................................. 145

D120/14    JRPP 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/320/2013/A)........................ 151

 

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting NOT required)

 

M8/14       Draft Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 and Draft Development Control Plan 2013- Undergrounding Powerlines................................................. 191    

 

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D110/14

 

 

Subject:                  263-265 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/366/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/366/2014

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building in two building forms containing 26 units, including affordable housing component, 2 levels of basement car parking for 35 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (variation to maximum height control)

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr C Lambi

Owner:                        Mr N Kyriacou, Ms A M Kyriacou, Mr C Lambi, Brack & Loe Pty Ltd, Mr K Giokas, Mr C K Kyriacou

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview5850.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposal is over $2 Million.

Proposal

 

It is proposed to:

 

§  Demolish the existing dwelling houses and associated structures on the subject site.

§  Remove twenty-two (22) on site trees and one (1) street tree along Maroubra lane.

§  Undertake excavation works primarily to provide an upper and lower level basement car parking.

§  Remove two existing vehicular crossings, one along Maroubra Road and the other along Maroubra Lane.

§  Construct a residential flat building consisting of a total of twenty-six (26) units within two blocks (Block A and Block B), above a common basement car parking consisting of a total of car spaces.  The development will include the dedication of 25% / approximately 7 units) as ‘affordable housing’ as defined under State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

§  Establish new on-site landscaping, inclusive of four (4) canopy trees, fifteen (15) smaller trees, and site fencing.

§  Install new stormwater infrastructure including on-site detention and a separate rainwater tank. The rainwater tank will collect runoff from the roof area that will be used for irrigation of the common landscaped area.

§  Provide a new vehicular crossing along the Maroubra Road frontage.

§  Divert the sewer line

§  Dedicate a strip of the site (700mm in width) located along the entire Maroubra Lane frontage. 

 

Block A will have a north-south orientation and be located at the front part of the site.  Block B will have an east-west orientation and be setback at the rear of the site.  The development composition is provided the table below.  In summary the following will be provided:

 

§  6 x 1 bedroom (each with a study) units

§  18 x 2 bedroom units (including 5 accessible units)

§  2 x 3 bedroom units

 

Unit types will include dual aspect, corner units and 2 storey units.   Six (6) of the 2 bedroom units will be double storey.  Lift access will be provided within the block (Block A) closest to Maroubra Road.

 

The basement levels will consist of a total of

 

§  Thirty-five (35) car parking spaces with an allocation twenty-eight (28) resident spaces (including five accessible spaces) and seven (7) visitor spaces (including one accessible space).

§  Fourteen (14) bicycle parking spaces

§  Two (2) motorbike parking spaces

§  Storage areas

§  Waste bin storage room for 26 bins

 

The driveway will include a passing bay upon entry into the upper basement level.  Access will be controlled via traffic signals, with one-way flow on the ramp beyond the passing bay.

 

The building composition will be as indicated in the Table below.

 

Level

 

Lower Basement Level

6 bicycle spaces

2 motorbike spaces

11 car parking spaces

Stair Access

Storage areas (49.4sqm)

Upper Basement Level

8 bicycle spaces

24 car parking spaces (including 6 accessible spaces)

Garbage room

Lift and Stair Access

Storage areas (49.4sqm)

Ground Floor Level

2 x 1 bedroom + study units

7 x 2 bedroom units (including 3 split level units with Level 1)

Care Taker WC

Level 1

2 x 1 bedroom + study units

4 x 2 bedroom units

Level 2

2 x 1 bedroom + study units

7 x 2 bedroom units (including 3 split level units with Level 3)

Level 3

2 x 3 bedroom units

 

Site

 

The subject development site (the site) comprises two residential allotments addressed as 263 and 265 Maroubra Road, Maroubra and registered as Lot A DP 319633 and Lot 1 DP 419245, respectively.  It is located on the south side of Maroubra Road and ‘L’ in shape.  The property 265 Maroubra Road is located further east and consists of an eastern projection at its rear which creates the ‘L’ shape.  The total area of the site is 1721.86sqm by way of survey submitted with the DA.

 

The site is bound by Maroubra Road to the north and Maroubra Lane to the south.  It has a frontage of 22.56m to Marboubra Road and southern (rear) boundary of 42.365m in length.  The western boundary of the site is 62.14m length and abuts the residential property 259-261 Maroubra Road. The eastern boundary is irregular and has a total length of 82.08m.  It mostly abuts the residential property 267 Maroubra Road along its side and rear boundaries.  Further east, the eastern extremities of the site abuts a rear length of the side boundary of 269-271 Maroubra Road.

 

Both 263 and 265 Maroubra Road each contain a dwelling house.  The dwelling house of 265 Maroubra Road is single storey in height and located at the front section of the lot.  Within the front building line setback and at the northeast corner of the dwelling is an attached garage. The eastern projection of the lot of 265 Maroubra Road, currently consists of a former lawn tennis court.  In between this projection and rear of the dwelling are 3 small sheds.  The dwelling house of 263 Maroubra Road is part 1 / part 2 storeys in height.  At the rear, southeast corner of this lot is a rendered, freestanding garage.

 

There are two separate vehicular access ways associated with the site.  One is located along the Maroubra Road frontage, to the eastern side of 265 Maroubra Road.  It provides direct access to/from Maroubra Road to/from the font garage. The other is located along Maroubra Lane and provides access to/from the rear garage of 263 Maroubra Road.  Both are approximately 3m in width.

 

The site has a slight fall to Maroubra Road (from south to north) along its western side, as well as a slight fall from east to west along its rear portion.  The lowest point of the site is located at the front northwest corner, whereas its highest point is located at its rear.  The consistency in levels are interrupted at some instances by retaining walls which are mainly located at the rear of 265 Maroubra Road.  There is one retaining wall along the common boundary between 263 and 265 Maroubra Road which has a higher height than some others.  This retaining wall, together with an adjacent, east-west orientated wall retain high land commencing adjacent to the dog leg of 265 Maroubra Road.

 

Most vegetation is located along the western boundary and to the rear of 263 Maroubra Road.  The submitted arborist report indicates 23 trees on the subject site.  All the trees, except for one tree (Canary Island Palm) is proposed for removal.  There are two street trees directly adjacent to the Maroubra Road frontage of the site and one tree directly adjacent to the rear boundary of the site along Maroubra Lane.  The tree along Maroubra Lane is proposed for removal.  A Moreton Bay Fig Tree on the neighbouring site 259-261 Maroubra Road and Port Jackson Fig Tree on the adjacent site 16 Haig Street are identified as Significant Trees on Council’s Register of Signficant Trees.

 

The submitted survey plan annotates an easement to the rear of 265 Maroubra Road that relates to ‘full and free right for the eaves guttering and downpipes of a brick garage’.  The related structures have since been removed.  There are two sewer lids and pipes on the subject site.  On the adjacent site, 269 further east is a sewer access chamber. There are various services infrastructure along Maroubra Road, adjacent to the site.

 

Images of the Site and Surrounds

 

Subject site from Maroubra Road

Photo 1 | Looking south at the Site.

RFB to the east on Maroubra Road

Photo 2 | Looking east (from left to right) at 273, 269-271 and 267 Maroubra Road.

 

 

Neighbour to the west of subject site at Maroubra Road

Photo 3 | Looking west at 259-261 Maroubra Road.

 

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:

 

·         20 Haig Street, Maroubra

·         22 Haig Street, Maroubra

·         24 Haig Street, Maroubra

·         Unit 8, 259-261 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         Owners Corporation, Strata Plan 70623, 259-261 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         Unit 14, 259-261 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         Unit 19, 259-261 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         Unit 11, 259-261 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         Unit 9, 267 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         Executive Committee of Strata Plan 5942, at 269-271 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         Unit 3 and 9 of 269-271 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         List of Owners and Tenants at 269-271 Maroubra Road, Maroubra with 13 signatures.

·         Unit 2 at 269-271 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·         Unit 3 & 9 269-271 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Built Form

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

§ The proposed floors space, wall height and overall height are excessive and non-compliant;

§ Setbacks are inadequate;

§ Concern the proposed development is not in keeping with existing streetscape;

§ Concern raised the proposed development is the same as the previous development application, DA-638/2013, that was withdrawn from Council.

§ Request for deletion of the fourth storey.

§ Proximity to the property boundary, reduces privacy to properties beyond the eastern boundary.

 

As pointed out by the Joint Randwick / Waverley Design Review Panel, a thorough site context analysis has been undertaken by the applicant. The chosen layout, reflecting the ‘two block / courtyard’ example is representative of the most suitable layout for the shape of the subject site particularly in: avoiding a long building form; allowing adequate separation of the built forms from each other and neighbouring properties; minimising amenity impacts (particularly overshadowing on neighbouring properties); facilitating 100% of units with cross ventilation opportunities and private open spaces with a northerly aspect.

 

The proposed development will exceed the maximum prescribed building height in some sections. The additional height will be of no consequence to visual privacy implications.

Affordable Housing

§ Concern over the proposal of affordable housing and viewed as public housing.

 

It is considered that the character of the proposal is satisfactory with the existing surrounds and expected future character dictated by the LEP controls.

 

The affordable housing component will extend opportunities to low income earners for well-designed and located housing. It is not considered to be public housing.

 

Solar Access

§ Concern over solar access implications;

§ Concerns over overshadowing on northern and eastern elevations.

 

The proposal meets the minimum solar access standards prescribed by the ARH SEPP for Infill Housing and the RFDC under SEPP 65.

 

The orientation of the subject and neighbouring sites is such that any central courtyard and private open spaces will be overshadowing by the buildings further north.

 

The shadows will move away from the property to the west (261 Maroubra Road) to the point that by 11am, the neighbouring property will be predominately unaffected by the proposal. The submitted elevation diagrams verify that the terrace / balcony areas on the side elevation of 261 Maroubra Road (or parts) will maintain solar access for at least 2 hours, while some windows will maintain solar access.

 

Although this represents the worst case scenario, a built form that achieves strict compliance with the height and side setback requirements will be of little benefit, given the underlying subdivision pattern and existing built form.

Parking

§ Insufficient parking;

§ Ancillary parking problems for Maroubra Lane as a consequence of the development

 

The car parking requirement for the residents is as per the ARH SEPP.

 

Council’s development engineer has assessed the proposed parking numbers and configuration. It is stated that the parking shortfall is not significant (less than 10%) and in recognition of the site’s convenient location close to public transport and Maroubra Junction Town Centre the deficiency is acceptable in this instance.

Amenity

§ Concern over visual privacy;

§ Concern raised over the interface with living spaces and adjoining development.

 

Conditions are recommended in order to control overlooking into adjoining properties.

Other

§ Concern over the property value;

 

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

 

The development application was renotified as the identified address was incorrect. The proposal was renotified between 22 October 2014 to 31 October 2014.

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

 

§ 20 Haig Street, Maroubra

§ Unit 8 / 259-261 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

§ 2 Amour Avenue, Maroubra

§ 269 Maroubra Road – Executive Committee

§ 263 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Built Form

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

§ The proposed floors space, wall height and overall height are excessive and non-compliant;

§ Setbacks are inadequate;

§ Concern raised over the proposed four (4) storey developments

 

Refer to comments above.

Affordable Housing

§ Concern over the proposal of affordable housing and viewed as public housing.

 

It is considered that the character of the proposal is satisfactory with the existing surrounds and expected future character dictated by the LEP controls.

 

Solar Access

§ Concern over solar access implications;

§ Concerns over overshadowing on northern and eastern elevations.

 

Refer to comments in the above table.

Parking

§ Insufficient parking.

§ Concern raised over the two levels of basement parking and the traffic implications.

 

Refer to parking and traffic comments in Section 7 of the Compliance report.

Other

§ Negative impact on the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

 

The proposed development is permissible with consent under R3 Medium Density Residential Zone and addresses the relevant objectives.

 

The proposal will not result in a loss of aural or visual privacy that cannot be overcome by the adoption of certain measures as discussed in the accompanying report. In addition, the proposal will maintain adequate solar access to the living areas within the bounds of reasonable expectations. Subject to standard conditions, the proposed demolition and construction works will result in reasonable / controlled amenity impacts on nearby residents.

 


 

Key Issues

 

Building Height

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum height standard contained in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation is summarized in the table and illustrated in Figures 1 – 4 containing excerpts from the submitted plans below:

 

 

Height

Development Standard

12m

Proposal – Building A

13.42m – 12.25m

Proposal – Building B

12.4m

Excess above RLEP Standard

11.83% - 2.08% (Building A) and 3.33% Building B)

Figure 1 | Western elevation demonstrating extent of height non-compliance

 

Figure 2 | Southern Elevation of Building B demonstrating height compliance

 

Figure 3 | Eastern elevation demonstrating extent of height non-compliance

Figure 4 | Maroubra Road elevation demonstrating comparative heights and extent of height non-compliance

 

Request to vary development standard

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

 

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 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.

 

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

 

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The objectives of the height standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant has provided the following arguments in support of the Clause 4.6 exception:

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed development will exceed the maximum permissible building height in certain sections, based on the RL’s provided on the survey plan. It is considered that the proposal, and the justification provided in the applicant’s written request have sufficient planning merit, as discussed below.

 

Building A:

 

With respect to Building A, the main height variation will be caused by the roof forms. The maximum height will be 13.42m and located at the front northwest corner of the most north facing roof feature. As a consequence of the downward slope of this roof feature (towards the south), its other end will only result in a variance of approximately 250mm – 300mm. The maximum height that will be attained at the opposite front corner of the roof features will be 12.76m given the higher RL’s generally towards the eastern side of the site.

 

It is recognised the sections closer to the side setbacks are well below the 12m height limit. The upper wall sections will have a further setback, whilst the roof features will achieve an even further maximum setback. In addition, progressive setbacks will be provided along the front and rear elevations. The setbacks will add articulation and assist in minimising the bulk and scale of the building. They will also minimise the visibility of the upper building portion from the street frontage and assist in emphasizing the lower height / smaller building scale.

 

The progressive side setback will minimise the additional amount of overshadowing on neighbouring properties. That additional amount that will be cause by the non-compliant section of the parapet alone will be of little consequence to the amenity of neighbouring properties.  The main consideration is whether or not the additional height caused by the roof forms will result in a significant impact to the amenity of neighbouring properties in comparison to a compliant situation. The build form will maintain adequate solar access opportunities particularly to the balconies on the side elevations of neighbouring buildings.

 

The additional height will be of no consequence to any visual privacy implications. The roof forms will not be accessible and will serve the purpose of maximising internal light access, as well as providing an articulated roofline that will contribute to the design of the built form.

 

There are no evident views that would be unreasonably obstructed by the roof forms.

 

Building B:

 

A minor section of the upper level of Building B will result in a variance to the maximum 12m height limit. The maximum variance will be no more than 400mm and located to the eastern end of the inner facing elevation (north) of Building B. Further to the west of the north elevation the variations will reduce to no more than 200mm. The variations will represent a minor length of the overall building elevation (approximately 37%). Non-compliance will not result in any significant adverse impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy and view loss. The variance will facilitate adequate and compliant floor-to-ceiling heights. No unnecessary visual bulk and scale will result. The roofline will be staggered and therefore the built form will present as a well-articulated form along the building length.

 

The critical elevation in terms of visual and amenity impacts (particularly in terms of overshadowing to the rear private open spaces of properties located on the opposite side of Maroubra Lane) will achieve full compliance with the 12m height limit, based on the existing site RL’s at the setback location of the elevation. If the height of the building is considered with respect to the higher RL’s along the rear boundary, the building achieves full compliance, inclusive of the variances along the inner (north facing) elevation. It will be well below the height limit.

 

The arguments presented in the applicant’s submission can be summarised as follows:

 

·         The height will be consistent with other adjoining developments within the immediate area, providing an acceptable streetscape outcome;

·         The extent of the variation is relatively minor in the context of the site’s overall development;

·         The proposal is well-articulated and the non-compliance will not adversely impact on the amenity or solar access enjoyed by adjoining properties;

·         The breach of the height limit does not create an inconsistency with the objectives of the zone and would not be inconsistent with the objectives of the impending status of the area as an urban activation precinct; and

·         The proposal exceeds the minimum standards for several amenity-based controls including landscaping, solar access and cross ventilation.

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be satisfactory. The variation will enable a well-considered development to be provided that addresses the Site constraints, streetscape and relevant objectives of both the standards and the zone. Further, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity or environmental impacts.  In this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard which are:

 

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

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

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

 

The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

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

·     To 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 has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring properties. The proposed built form serves to provide a development that is consistent with the desired future character of the locality and will increase the availability of affordable housing in the locality.

 

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

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

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 Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical height standard in this case 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 amended proposal 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 medium density housing forms, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The application proposes a gross floor area of 2018sqm, which represents an FSR of 1.17:1. The existing maximum FSR applicable under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) for the site is 0.9:1. Clause 13 of the AR SEPP however provides a bonus FSR of 0.25:1, resulting in a maximum FSR of 1.15:1 in this instance as 496sqm (or 24.58%) of the gross floor area of the development will be used for affordable rental housing. It should be noted that the applicant has not opted to take up the allowable bonus which is up to 0.5:1.

 

The proposed GFA exceeds the maximum permitted by 37.86sqm. A submission from the applicant dated 17 November 2014 regarding the variation states that two areas have been excluded in the calculation of GFA, notably the enclosed lobby areas of Building A (exclusive of the stairways) and the caretaker’s WC, which account for an additional GFA of 44.59sqm. The applicant has noted that while strictly speaking, the lobby areas do not constitute “vertical circulation”, they are adjacent to that circulation space and therefore should be excluded in a practical sense. 

 

Additionally, if the resultant FSR were to be amended to strictly comply with the ARH SEPP, the compliant situation would have no consequence to the proposed bulk, scale and perceived amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. 

 

Notwithstanding this, compliance can be achieved (and the higher planning goal of housing affordability achieved) if the affordable rental housing component is increased by effectively adding another unit, totaling eight (8) units, as opposed to seven (7).  This would not require any physical changes to the built form.

 

Alternatively, the overall gross floor area could be reduced by way of an enabling condition in any approval issued. In this respect, a condition could be imposed requiring a reduction of the overall GFA by 37.86sqm. However, in light of the above, the relative scale of the variation and the fact that minor changes could be made to the building so that the lobby areas do not constitute gross floor area, simply to achieve strict numerical compliance, the most appropriate solution is to require the dedication of an additional affordable unit. A condition is recommended to be included in consent to ensure that an additional unit is allocated as affordable rental housing.

 

Side Setbacks

Building A:  A variance of a minimum of 0.5m is proposed to either side of the rear portion of Building A.  This is a minor variance and is supported on the following grounds:

§    The side setbacks for the remainder of the building have been increased above the minimum requirement.

§    The variance will occur along a shorter building length in comparison to the compliant portion. 

§    The varied setbacks will provide good articulation along the sides of the building.

§    The variance will not unreasonable restrict any common access ways, landscaped zones or private open spaces.

§    The proposed minimum setback is considered, on balance to result in an acceptable outcome and is greater than that of the neighbouring building to the west (261 Maroubra Road) which has a minimum 2m setback.  This building does not facilitate a minimum 6m separation as required by the RFDC.  In this regard the neighbouring property is “borrowing” amenity from the subject site, limiting the ability to achieve strict numerical compliance.

§    Adequate separation which meets the absolute minimum of 6m (i.e. at least 8.5m) will be provided between Building A and that of 267 Maroubra Road.

§    The variance will not significantly impact on the visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences in comparison to a compliant situation.

§    A compliant situation will not improve the privacy implications in comparison to a compliant situation.  Nevertheless, screening or side blade walls are proposed to side balconies and larger openings.

§    A compliant situation will have no evident benefit with respect to natural ventilation opportunities, nor will it materially improve solar access and onsite amenity for the development and the adjoining residences.

 

Building B:  A variance of a minimum of 0.5m - 1m is proposed to the east side of Building B.  The 1m variance occurs along a minor wall length on the first and second floors.

 

This variance is supported on the following grounds:

§    The 1m variance occurs along a minor wall length, at the first and second floor levels, and only to the east and rear side of the site.

§    The western side setback has been increased well above the minimum requirement as an offset.

§    The varied setbacks will provide some articulation along the east side of the building.

§    The variance will not impede on any common access ways, landscaped zones or private open spaces.

§    Adequate separation which meets the absolute minimum of 6m (i.e. at least 8m) will be provided between Building B and that of 269-271 Maroubra Road.

§    The variance will not significantly impact on the visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences in comparison to a compliant situation.

§    A fully compliant situation will not result in any significant improvements over the proposed circumstances in terms of privacy, natural ventilation opportunities or solar access.

 

Building Separation

Based on the minimum side setback requirement of 4m, the DCP suggests that a building separation of at least 8m is expected.  Based on the RFDC ‘rules of thumb’ the absolute minimum building separation is 6m.  Regardless, the proposal will generally achieve more than the 8m minimum requirement. 

 

On the western side of the proposal, adjacent to the neighbouring balconies of the front building at 261 Maroubra Road, the separation will be 8.6m at ground level and 9.5m at first floor level of the proposed building.  The proposed building has been designed so that the core of Building A is located directly opposite.  The proposed balconies and generally the west elevation behind (of Unit G03, 103, 203) will be separated 7.5m from the neighbouring building elevation and about 6m from the balconies of this building.  The separation is appropriate as it achieves the absolute 6m minimum separation provided by the RFDC, screening will be provided along the side elevations of balconies and the balconies of the neighbouring property extend closer to the side boundary (i.e. 2m at the raised ground level and 3m at first floor level).  In this regard the neighbouring property “borrows” amenity from the subject site.  The proposed separations represent a fair outcome in this regard. 

 

Similarly, the rear southwest terraces of Building A will have a minimum 6m diagonal separation from the balconies of the rear building at 261 Maroubra Road.  This is satisfactory as blade walls will be provided along the sides of these balconies, they will not serve main living areas, the neighbouring balconies have a minimum setback of about 2m from the side boundary, and thus “borrow” amenity from the subject site.

 

The rear section of Building A will have a 0.5m setback variation to the 4m requirement.  This variation is minimal in terms of having any significant benefit to daylight access and privacy.  To achieve an 8m diagonal separation between balconies an extra 2m setback will be required.  Imposition of such an additional setback would be unreasonable and inequitable in this circumstance, particularly given the closer setbacks of the neighbouring property

 

The reduced setback at the rear of Building A benefits the urban form particularly in terms of articulation.

 

The east side of Building B will have a side setback of between 3m – 3.5m.  The side balconies of the neighbouring property at 269-271 Maroubra Road (adjacent to the subject site) also have a 3m setback.  The imposition of an extra 1m setback to meet strict numerical compliance will not benefit the amenity outcome, particularly in terms of privacy between balconies.  Given the offset of the balconies and balconies serving non-main living rooms, the privacy implications will be controlled to a certain extent, however to further improve the amenity of both properties, it is recommended that louvred screens be provided along the east side balcony openings as well as to the return of the balconies.  No treatment is necessary for the kitchen windows at second floor level as the kitchen benching will limit access up to the windows and overlooking.  The windows on the other levels in the same location will serve non-habitable rooms and are expected to contain obscure glazing.

 

Visual Privacy

The proposed measures discussed in the sections above (particularly with respect to building separations) and the section ‘Acoustic Privacy’ of Table 2 will assist in controlling overlooking.  In addition some kitchen layouts will restrict access up to kitchen windows via the provision of benches under the window.  This is important in the case where the side setback of the rear portion on Building B proposes a 0.5m variance and will be located about 6m from neighbouring balconies.

 

Openings on the side elevations of the third level of Building A have been limited to bedroom windows.  The setback of front and rear terraces behind the side elevations of the level below, plus blade wall treatments will obstruct downwards views from these terraces.  This treatment does not apply to the outer terrace located along the eastern side of the building.  To limit downward views from this terrace, it is recommended that at least a width of 1m on the outer side be non-trafficable and screen planting be provided or louvred screens be provided along the inner side of the non-trafficable area.

 

To control overlooking from the proposed raised central courtyard a condition is recommended to require screen planting to be maintained along the western side of the courtyard to supplement that on the neighbouring property.

 

No additional treatment is required to the northern elevation of Building B as it will have an ample separation from neighbouring properties and include screening to balcony openings.  Additionally, larger openings will serve bedrooms and kitchen and dining rooms windows will be highlight windows.  Access up to the kitchen and study room windows will not be possible given the proposed benching under the windows.

 

External Wall Height

The ARH SEPP allows for a FSR bonus and as such, there is a reasonable expectation that the external wall height and overall building height will be higher to accommodate the bonus.  The DCP control for external wall height plus those that relate to side setbacks and site cover only cater for standard residential flat buildings and do not reflect circumstances in which State policies allow for bonuses to the FSR.  Where local building envelope controls conflict with the provisions of the State policies, the State controls prevail.  This follows therefore, that with any gross floor area bonus, adequate floor-to-ceiling heights need to be provided. 

 

In most circumstances where a variation is proposed along the buildings, it is the extra height that is necessary to achieve the minimum floor-to-ceiling heights that results in the non-compliance with the 10.5m height control, rather than a full storey.  This and other measures are employed to minimise the extent of non-compliance. 

 

With respect to Building A and its side elevations, the variance to the external wall height will only occur in the central core section, with the walls staggered and the wall height interrupted beyond this section.  This treatment will result in the appearance of lower, smaller modules, creating appropriate articulation along the side elevations and avoiding an extensive long wall.  The wall sections above the modules will not be more than 2.9m (including the parapet).  Additionally, where there is a variation sought to the external wall height, the setbacks have been maximized, which also helps counteract additional overshadowing.

 

A similar approach has been applied to the treatment of the front and rear elevations.  The front elevation wall sections achieve compliance with the 10.5m height limit, exclusive of the framing that extends to the roof.  This framing will result in a maximum variance of 1.6m and relate to a wall width of about 350mm to either side.  The framing also benefits the design and streetscape presentation of the built form without resulting in any substantial, additional overshadowing.  In this regard the variance is supported.  With respect to the rear elevation the outer wall height will be below the 10.5m external wall height.  The inner wall will not extend in height more than a storey.

 

On the north elevation of Building B, wall heights are minimised via the staggering of the roof line and puncturing of the otherwise flat wall elevations with balconies.  Generally all blade wall extensions along the sides of balconies are not more than the 10.5m height limit.  Any encroachments are very minor (of about no more than 100mm) and of negligible consequence to the design and amenity impacts.  Due to the sudden drop in the existing levels at the rear of the site, the northwest corner of the north elevation of the building wall will result in a variance of about 1.1m.  The variance will not contribute to any concerns with respect to design and amenity impacts.

 

The side elevations of Building B adopt a similar approach to interrupting the external wall height as Building A.  Generally compliance will be achieved along the western elevation, albeit in at the northwest corner which faces away from the rear lane and has a side setback of more than the minimum requirement.  A variation of 1.1m is proposed at this point of the building.  The east elevation will consist of two strips which will exceed the external wall height, ranging from about 0.7m to 1.2m in width.  At the 10.5m height limit, the extent of the strips are visually interrupted via a change to the external materials (i.e. from brickwork to light weight cladding). In this circumstance and the absence of any significant overshadowing or visual implications, the variations are acceptable.

 

Given the lower form of the stepped roof line as a result of the variances to the number of levels of Building B, compliance will be achieved with the 10.5m height limit.  In the location of the higher roof line, compliance will also be achieved given that the external wall of the lower level will not vertically extend with that of the levels above but be further setback from the laneway elevation thus interrupting the overall length. 

 

Solar Access – Impact on Neighbours

The orientation of the subject and neighbouring sites is such that any central courtyard and private open spaces will be overshadowed by the buildings further north. 

 

The shadows will move away from the neighbouring property to the west (261 Maroubra Road) to the point that by 11am, the neighbouring property will be predominantly unaffected by the proposal.  The submitted elevation diagrams verify that the terrace/balcony areas on the side elevation of 261 Maroubra Road (or parts) will maintain solar access for at least 2 hours, while some windows will maintain solar access.

 

Although this represents the worst case scenario, a built form that achieves strict compliance with the height and side setback requirements will be of little benefit, given the underlying subdivision pattern and existing built environment.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development addresses the assessment criteria and the objectives of R3 Medium Density Residential zone and objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2013. The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site in the context of the surrounding residential area.

 

It is to be expected that where a planning control provides for a development bonus (in the way of additional floor area) to achieve outcomes such as the encouragement of more affordable housing, that other envelope or density controls may subsequently be affected. Accordingly, the proposal has been designed to capitalise on the available FSR bonus, which is reflected in relatively minor variations to the side setbacks, building separation and external wall height. These minor variations from development standards are not expected to have significant adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding development in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Building Height 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.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/366/2014 for the construction of a 4 storey residential flat building in two building forms containing 26 units with an affordable rental housing component, at No. 263 Maroubra Road, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Affordable Rental Housing Component

2.       A plan to be submitted to Council satisfactory to SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) identifying what area is dedicated to affordable rental housing. In this regard, a minimum of eight (8) units shall be provided as affordable rental housing.

 

The specific dwellings identified for affordable rental housing shall be indicated on the stamped approved Construction Certificate plans, a copy of which should be submitted to Council.

 

a.  The dwellings to be used for the purposes of ‘affordable rental housing’, as per the provisions of the SEPP shall be used as such for at least 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate.

 

b.  The affordable rental housing component (secured for a minimum of 10 years) must be managed by a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP).  The CHP must ensure compliance with the occupant restriction and others provisions of the regulatory code established through regulations under the Housing Act 2001.

 

c.  A restriction must be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property, in accordance with Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that the requirements a. and b. are met and that the terms of restriction may not be varied without Council’s consent.

 

d.  Prior to an occupation certificate being granted, evidence must be provided to Council demonstrating that the section 88E covenant has been registered on the title stating that the affordable rental housing component must be used for affordable rental housing and managed by a registered CHP.

 

Privacy:

5.       The following amendments are to be undertaken and detailed on the plans to be submitted for approval with the application for a Construction Certificate:

 

a.       A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the east side balcony openings of Building B, as well as to the return of the balconies, to further improve the amenity of both the Site and neighbouring properties.  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.       At least 1m width on the outer side of the outer upper level terrace located along the eastern side of the building be non-trafficable and screen planting be provided or lourve screen treatment be provided along the inner side of the non-trafficable area, so as to minimise downward views from this terrace.

 

c.       Screen planting is required to be maintained along the western side of the proposed raised central terrace in order to control overlooking and supplement that on the neighbouring property.

Site Consolidation

45.     The subject site shall be consolidated with evidence of registration of the consolidation being provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of the Occupation Certificate.

 

Waste Management

47.     Each dwelling must consist of a waste cupboard or temporary storage area of sufficient size to hold a single day’s waste and to enable source separation.

 

48.     A caretaker/or other responsible person is to ensure that all waste bins are transported to and from kerbside collection points immediately before and after collection, that bins do not overflow and that all bins, storage room and kerbside collection zones are maintained in a hygienic condition.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 263 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D111/14

 

 

Subject:                  47-53 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/414/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/414/2014

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing buildings and erection of seven storey shop top housing development (6 storeys with roof level) comprising ground floor retail, 33 dwellings and basement car parking for 48 vehicles.

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Mr F Johnston

Owner:                        Mr P Panopoulos and Mrs E Panopoulos; Hyncabe Pty Ltd; Mr Y Chan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview66716.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the estimated value of the development is over $2 million.

 


Proposal

 

The application is for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of seven storey shop top housing development (6 storeys with roof level) comprising ground floor retail, 33 dwellings and basement car parking for 48 vehicles.

 

Amendments:

 

The original application proposed 43 dwellings and basement car parking for 44 vehicles. The application was amended in response to issues raised by Council and the Urban Design Review Panel. These amended plans received by Council 31 October 2014 are the subject of this assessment.

 

The amendments include:

                                  

·      Revised retail design incorporating glazing along the southern side elevation along Balfour Lane to provide for an active frontage along Balfour Lane

·      Relocation of the substation from Balfour Lane to allow for the activated corner retail frontage as outlined above

·      Revised driveway design to satisfy Council’s engineers

·      Revised lobby design to satisfy DRP recommendations

·      Revised design to improve access from the lobby to the communal open space area at the rear

·      Reduction in the amount of studio and 1-bedroom apartments

·      Revised unit layouts to achieve a greater proportion of 2-bedroom units

·      Revised elevations to allow for greater indentations and articulation to the east-facing Anzac Parade elevation as well as to the rear/west-facing façade These amendments also allow for dual aspect apartments which provides alternative options for daylight and cross-ventilation

·      Revised floor plans to provide for indentations and articulation to the north and south facing side elevations which break down the bulk of the building and providing open ended louvred corridors (a minimum of 50% open across their elevations) allowing for natural ventilation to the northern and southern end apartments.

·      Recessed balconies at the 4th and 5th levels to be consistent with the treatment of balconies of the approved development opposite at 84-106 Anzac Parade

·      Increased front setback of the rooftop level and altered roof design, which both increases articulation and creates visual interest when viewed from street side. The upper level units have been recessed from the perimeter of the building below.

·      Reduced building envelope to be compliant with the DCP requirement. In particular, it is noted that the increase in front setback of the roof top level has reduced the floor area by 10sqm down to 233sqm) resulting in the rooftop level now representing 40% of the floor below (which has a footprint of 582sqm) and section 4.6.9(a) Habitable Roof Space of the DCP.

·      Retention of compliance with the overall height limits (25m). Note: The amended roof form is below the maximum height originally proposed.

·      Retention of privacy to the western neighbours through maintenance of generous rear setbacks to the flat buildings along Boronia Street. The rear setback has been increased to be in excess of 12-metres, being 13.13-15.13m whilst the provision of planting in the rear setback also assists in maintaining mutual privacy and provision of a reasonable bulk and scale.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade. It has a 26.92 metre street frontage to Anzac Parade and is adjoined to the south by other commerical premises and to the north and west by residential premises. Along the sites southern side boundary a pedestrian walkway known as Balfour Lane, extends all the way through to Boronia Street to the west.

 

The proposal seeks to amalgamate three (3) individual allotments, presently comprising a run of nondescript one (1) and two (2) storey shop buildings, with residential above. The site comprises the following lots:

 

·      47 Anzac Parade containing a two storey brick shop and residence (Lot 2 DP 308379 & Lot 3 DP 175504)

·      49 Anzac Parade containing a two storey brick shop and residence (Lot 1 DP 177763)

·      51-53 Anzac Parade containing a one and two storey brick shop and residence (Lot 2 DP 177763)

 

The site is generally rectangular and of the following dimensions:

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

34.685 metres

885sqm

Eastern, Anzac Parade boundary

26.92 metres

Southern, side boundary

33.425 metres

Western, rear boundary.

25.435 metres

 

The site contains a significant rise at the rear western half of the properties of approximately five metres in comparison with the ground level at the front side ground level.

 

Photo 1: Street view of subject sites

Photo 2: View of Balfour Lane pedestrian access looking westward showing subject site at right and Peters of Kensington at left.

 

Submissions

The owners of neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Amended plans were received by Council on 16 October 2014 and subsequently on 31 October 2014. The amended plans were not required to be re-notified on the basis that the issues raised by the neighbouring properties such as privacy, height and overshadowing remain applicable and will not be altered by the amendments in so far as the issues raised with the original development.

                                

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:

 

41 Boronia Street, Kensington;

43 Boronia Street, Kensington;

45 Boronia Street, Kensington;

6/45 Boronia Street, Kensington;

9/45 Boronia Street, Kensington (on behalf of unit owner units 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, 8 & 9)

1/47 Boronia Street, Kensington

5/47 Boronia Street, Kensington

6/47 Boronia Street, Kensington

 

Issues

Comments

Overshadowing, loss of sunlight and general light reduction makes our dwellings dark and cold, affects health and the resale value of our units and properties.

No solar access impact will be incurred to the eastern side of properties located at 41, 43 and 45 Boronia Street between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. The most impacted development in relation to overshadowing is the ground (elevated) level unit at the rear of No. 47 Boronia Street. An assessment of the overshadowing is discussed under the key issues section of this report.

In relation to sunlight the proposal provides adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for the purposes of sunlight and day light. Further, the local subdivision pattern and orientation of the allotments also renders the adjoining properties to the south quite vulnerable to overshadowing.

 

Impact on views of landmarks including Randwick Racecourse

It is considered that given the view lines are achieved between the Kensington Town Centre and the racecourse, over 500 metres away, these views are likely to be blocked by any compliant redevelopment of sites on Anzac Parade.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy impacts with direct views into bedrooms and balconies opposite and therefore the peaceful enjoyment of our homes

In terms of visual privacy the proposal is acceptable due to the location of rooms and degree of separation from neighbouring development and the incorporation of louvers, planter boxes and screening. Subject to conditions the proposed development will allow for reasonable visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

 

In terms of acoustic privacy, the level of additional noise associated with the proposed development is expected to be fairly typical of mixed-use developments of a similar scale (noting that the surrounding area is characterised by such developments) and not considered to be unreasonable in this location/zone. Noise impacts that are typical of residential uses are consistent with the zoning and not unreasonable.

Parking spaces are inadequate for the proposed development and will result in parking and traffic congestion: tenants or owners will not use the parking spaces and will park on the street which does not have any available parking; modern day households have more than one vehicle; retail customers require parking, new light rail will reduce parking along Anzac Parade. The ratio of number of car spaces to the number of dwelling & retail customers should be around 1.5 to 2 which would require over 100+ car spaces; Existing infrastructure such as public transport cannot cope with the increased population/density.

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the application and no objections have been raised on safety, parking or traffic grounds. Whilst the proposed parking provision does not achieves compliance with the numerical requirements under Council’s Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Part B7, Transport, Traffic, parking and access it is considered that the parking shortfall is minor and that subject to appropriate conditions the parking provided will meet the demand generated by the development. Refer to detailed discussion in key issues section. Part B7 of the DCP provides design guidelines, Parking and Service Delivery requirements that are modelled on Australian standards, Roads and Maritime Services guide to traffic generating development 2002 and Austroads guides.

The increased density of housing and population has not been accompanied by an attempt at a development that integrates and addresses demographic, economic as well as communal factors

The proposed development will provide for housing diversity thereby responding to the social and economic needs of the community.

The development will affect resale values due to the loss of views

Property value or resale value is not a relevant planning consideration. Property valuation is a matter that goes beyond the scope of matters of consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

Object to the removal of the Jacaranda tree at the rear of No. 53A Anzac Parade and it should be retained and protected

Because of its, the size and location the Jacaranda tree cannot be retained in this part of the site.

Flooding and depth of excavation during construction in conjunction with other nearby development at No. 49-59 Boronia Street may affect the stability of our land and structures located upon them. Also despite dilapidation reports are required there may be confusion as to which party is responsible for damage.

Suitable conditions are recommended to protect the adjoining sites during construction relating to both flooding and excavation. Standard conditions are included in the recommendation requiring a dilapidation report and that any excavation and construction meet the relevant standards.

Department of Primary Industries, Office of Water has an approval rate with respect to the dewatering of the site for the purposes of construction. The construction dewatering proposed for the proposal is deemed to be an aquifer activity in accordance with the definition in Water Management Act 2000. The Department of Water supported the application, subject to conditions.

Require an assurance that all utilities will be within the roof line and will comply with all RCC district plan height restrictions

The proposed development shows a lift overrun that is located behind the clerestory roof form and does not rise above the maximum height of the proposed development.

The building will be visually overbearing and an inappropriate design for this part of Kensington which will be out of keeping with the neighbouring properties which includes some smaller houses

The site exists in a Kensington Town Centre, which permits development of a maximum height of 25m, and the proposed development achieves a six-storey development with habitable roof space that complies with this standard. It is noted that due to the topography of the land it provides five storeys with habitable roof above to the rear. The scale of the proposed development and its relationship to the flat buildings to the rear at No. 45 and 47 Boronia Street that have a four-storey scale with roof represents a suitable transition. Whilst the proposal presents a greater scale when compared against the one and a half storey scale of single dwellings at No. 41 and 43 Boronia Street, it is noted that these neighbouring properties are zoned medium density development. Notwithstanding the separation distance from the properties to the rear ensures that adequate visual amenity will be retained to these properties. Further, the proposal has redistributed the building envelope to achieve good levels of articulation, screening devices, a combination of surface finishes and spatial separation with adjoining properties, which will achieve a density with minimal environmental impact and therefore achieves a better planning outcome

The proposed height does not comply with the district height plan restrictions and will completely block our views

The proposal meets the overall height standard under Council’s LEP and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the size and scale of buildings envisaged by the building envelope controls.

It will take years for planting in the rear yard to establish

Councils Landscape Officer has considered the proposed planting in the rear of the site and there are conditions requiring relatively mature planting. Notwithstanding, it is noted that due to the difference in ground levels at the rear and the required excavation on site that there are limitations on the height of trees that can be planted in the rear of the site both in terms of height and level of maturity at planting.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP)

The DCP and parts within it adopt a performance based approach where the provisions typically consist of two components, being objectives and controls (such as a numerical standard). If a proposal does not meet the numerical controls in the DCP, it however may still be supported in so far as it successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

The application has been assessed against, and is consistent with, the objectives of the DCP. The development will not result in significant impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The issues elaborated upon below have been identified as key areas and areas of non compliance with the controls during the assessment of the application as well as those that bear a relationship to these areas.

 

Particular reference is made to key parts of the DCP including Part D1, Kensington Town Centre, and Part B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access.

 

Part D1 Kensington Town Centre

Part D1 - Kensington Town Centre of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 provides a framework for the redevelopment of the wider Kensington Town Centre and surrounds, containing development and design objectives and controls to guide built form, provide environmental and amenity standards, and give appropriate protection for local business, open space and residential development both on a block-by-block basis as well as a general overview.

 

The proposal is subject to a number of applicable areas of the DCP and block-specific (Block 11 - Balfour Lane to Centre boundary) controls of the DCP and discussed below.

 

Clause 4.2 Building envelope

Clause 4.2 of the DCP: Building envelopes provide the development and design framework for all development within the Kensington town centre and primarily relate to the following key interelated clauses of the DCP:

 

·      Clause 4.2.1: New built form,

·      Clause 4.2.5: Building Zone,

·      Clause 4.2.10: Setbacks and

·      Clause 4.3: Block-by-Block controls. 

 

The proposed development complies with the majority of controls contained within the above clauses; however the most salient of these clauses relate to the proposed developments depth extending beyond the maximum depths identified under Block by Block controls for block 11 under Clause 4.3.

 

Clause 4.3 Block by block controls – Block 11

Block 11 encompasses an area of Kensington located along the western side of Anzac Parade running northwards from the Balfour Lane pedestrian access way to the northern most section of the Kensington Town Centre. The proposed development at certain parts mainly at the rear, has a depth that exceeds the designated building envelope (or maximum depths) outlined in the block 11 controls shown in figure 1 layout and figure 2 section diagrams.

 

The block 11 controls describe a block-perimeter envelope with a maximum height of 4 storeys along Anzac Parade (22m depth), with upper 2 levels, that is 5th and 6th storeys, setback 4m from Anzac Parade and 6th storey also observing a 4m rear setback from the floor below (18m and 14m respectively).

 

Figure 1: The layout controls identify that for the first floor levels the development may extend from the Anzac Parade frontage to a depth of 22m, the fifth level elevation setback 4m from Anzac Parade will have a maximum length of 18m in line with the rear of the floors below; the sixth level with a front and rear 4m setback has a maximum depth of 14m. Note: habitable roof top levels are identified as being located over the floor level below with specific controls limit the floor area to no more than 40% of the floor below.

 

 

Figure 2 provides a sectional view of the above controls

 

Areas of non compliance

The proposal will be 6 storeys, with the habitable roof space, in compliance with the density, building and floor heights controls however its lengths will exceed the designated envelopes on the street frontage and at the rear as follows:

 

·      Ground level extends along the full length of the site to the western boundary extending beyond the 22m maximum depth.

 

·      Levels 1 to 3: These levels are 25.54m and exceed the 22m maximum depth control by 3.54m.

 

·      Level 4: This level is 21.54m and exceeds the 18m maximum depth control under by 3.54. It is noted a 4m setback from the Anzac Parade frontage is provided and the non compliance relates to its rear aligning with the floor below (which is consistent with the alignement shown in figure 2).

 

·      Level 5: This level is 23.54m measured from balcony line to balcony line and exceeds the 14m maximum depth control by 9.54m. The total length of non-compliance is shared between the front and rear setbacks. In relation to the front, level 5 contains balconies within the 4m front setback and in relation to the rear it aligns with the floor level below and is not setback 4m behind the floor level below.

 

Assessment against objectives

Given the interrelated nature of the building envelope clauses with the block by block controls an assessment is therefore carried out against each of the key clauses indentified above.

 

Clause 4.2.1 New built form

 

Clause 4.2.1 of Part D1 - Kensington Town Centre serves to achieve a new built form that responds to the Building Envelope Controls of the DCP. Specifically, the DCP requires new built form in the Town Centre to occur within designated building envelopes as outlined by the block controls. A key performance criterion under this clause is that new development must demonstrate the gross floor area occupies no more than 80-85% of the building envelope. The application includes details demonstrating that the proposed development occupies no more than 77% of the building envelope. As the proposed floor area is located along parts of the site that extend beyond the maximum depth controls an assessment is carried out against the following new built form objectives:

 

·      To achieve a new built form that responds to the Building Envelope Controls of this Plan.

·      To achieve well designed buildings incorporating suitable facade design and articulation

 

Despite the floor plate extending beyond the building envelope controls the proposed development resopnds well to the site conditions. In particular, the ground level at the rear is contained under existing ground level and will not be discernable from neighbouring sites. In relation to the upper levels, the proposed development is considered to be well designed incorporating suitable façade design and articulation, whereby the application has been the subject of advice and recommedations provided by both Council and the Urban Design Review Panel in line with the design quality principles for multi storey residential developments under SEPP 65. Further, the additional articulation and resultant redistributed floor area will achieve very high levels of internal amentiy to the future occupants of the apartments that have dual aspect and natural cross ventilation. In relation to its relationship with wider context, the proposed development will continue to achieve a strong edge to Anzac Parade from ground level to level 3 and the upper levels will for the most part be of an open design with only balconies encroaching the building envelope. In relation to the rear, the proposed devleopment maintains these similar levels of articulation and design elements as will be viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

Overall, the proposed development responds well to the building envelope controls and the proposed development contains good levels of façade design and articulation and will therefore satisfy the relevant objectives under this Clause of the DCP.

 

Clause 4.2.5 Building zone

 

The Building Zone section aims to optimise the position of new development in relation to the lot, the street edge and neighbouring development. This is to achieve the following objectives through location of buildings within the building zones indicated on the block-by-block controls:

 

·      To achieve a strong street edge to Anzac Parade.

·      To achieve environmentally sustainable, dual aspect apartments with natural cross-ventilation.

·      To achieve a high standard of environmental amenity for residents of new development.

·      To ensure the bulk and scale of new development reinforces positive neighbourhood amenity and character and responds to the scale of the street and surrounding buildings.

·      To distribute building bulk and height in order to maximise accessible, well configured communal open space.

 

To achieve a strong street edge to Anzac Parade.

 

The strong street edge to Anzac Parade is largley achieved by the nil setbacks for the first four levels and will not be impacted by the contraventions to the building envelope controls.

 

To achieve environmentally sustainable, dual aspect apartments with natural cross-ventilation.

 

The length of the development and the encroachments are largley a consequence of achieving environmental sustainable, dual aspect apartments with natural cross ventilation.

 

To achieve a high standard of environmental amenity for residents of new development.

 

The environmental amenity for residents of new development will be of a high standard.

 

To ensure the bulk and scale of new development reinforces positive neighbourhood amenity and character and responds to the scale of the street and surrounding buildings.

 

The bulk and scale of the new development will continue to reinforce positive neighbourhood amenity and character and responds to the scale of the street and surrounding buildnigs. Whilst there are buildings to the rear at no. 41 and 43 Boronia Street that are single dwellings and therefore of a much smaller scale than the proposed development, these properties are zoned R3 medium residential development. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development retains adquate separation between these dwellings and will not result in any additional overshadowing to these properties.

 

To distribute building bulk and height in order to maximise accessible, well configured communal open space.

 

The building bulk and hegiht are well distributed and sufficient areas of communcal open space is provided in the rear of the site for the purposes of recreational open space.

 

Clause 4.2.10 - Setbacks

Consistent with the intention of Clause 4.2.5 for Building Zones above, Clause 4.2.10 of the DCP – Kensington Town Centre objectives aim to: -

 

·      Reinforce the prevailing character of the Town Centre.

·      Provide visual and acoustic privacy between neighbouring buildings.

·      Orientate buildings and habitable rooms towards the street, and towards communal open space.

·      Minimise any negative impact on the amenity of adjacent sites.

 

Development along Anzac Parade allows for a 0m setback for both Anzac Parade and side boundaries for the first 4 storeys, with upper levels 5th storey (level 4) and 6th storey (Level 5) the setback controls require a 4m setback from the front and for the sixth storey (Level 5) a rear setback of 4m is required from the floor below. As indicated earlier, the proposal encroaches at level 5 from the Anzac Parade frontage by virtue of the balconies contained within the 4m setback and will not result in any detrimental impacts on the prevailing character of the Town Centre. In relation to the rear setbacks, the proposed depth of the development across all levels extends beyond the maximum depths identified under the block by block controls. An assessment against the relevant objectives is carried out below:

 

Reinforce the prevailing character of the Town Centre.

 

The character of the Town Centre has undergone considerable change more recently. The proposed development is generally consistent with the bulk and scale of these more recent developments that have already been constructed and those that have been approved for development but yet to be constructed. In this respect, the proposed development is considered to reinforce the prevailing character of the Town Centre.

 

Provide visual and acoustic privacy between neighbouring buildings.

 

For the purposes of privacy, the proposed development is setback greater than the 12m minimum control required under this clause of the DCP. As indicated earlier, additional privacy measures are required as a condition of consent to the upper levels. The roof top level does not require added measures as it is reasonably setback from the rear alignment that it will be signficant distance from the neighbouring properties.

 

Orientate buildings and habitable rooms towards the street, and towards communal open space.

 

The building is orientated towards the street and towards communcal open spaces.

 

Minimise any negative impact on the amenity of adjacent sites.

 

Despite these non compliances the proposed devleopment will continue to achieve this objective in so far as the development has a complying height and relatively consistent scale with existing and likely future development on neighbouring sites. Combined with the rear setback of between 13.13m and 15.13m from neighbouring buildings lines to the rear, the upper floors will not be visually dominating or overbearing.

 

Overall, having regard to the building envelope controls addressed above, it is considered that despite the building encroaching over the maximum building depths across parts of the development, it will continue to satisfy the relevant objectives on the basis of the following:

 

·      The proposal is well designed having regard to the Anzac Parade frontage and the wider streetscape character,

·      Where the building rises signficantly above the smaller buildings at the rear, there is sufficient seperation between these buildings and the development is well designed and articulated incorporating open design elements such as balconies and recessed sections of the bulit form breaking up its bulk

·      The proposal achieves a high level of amenity for the new residents of the building with a high proportion of units containing dual aspect and cross ventilation properties

·      The proposed gross floor area is well distributed throughout the building envelope and will not result in any significant or unreasonable overshadowing to the neighbouring propeties

·      The proposal provides greater than minimum separation distances between buildings to the rear ensuring reasonable privacy protection of these buildings and the future occupants of the proposed development

 

As such, the development is considered to meet the relevant envelope controls for Block 11 and assoicated envelope controls under the abovementioned clauses of the DCP.

 

Clause 4.5.2 - On-Site Parking

Clause 4.5.2 On-Site Parking including the provisions under Part B7 of the DCP Traffic, Parking and Access aim to ensure new development can provide adequate on-site parking, relieving the existing or potential pressure on residential streets. The relevant objectives in relation to the on-site parking provision are:

 

·      To provide on-site parking for commercial users, residents and visitors.

·      To ensure that on-site parking does not significantly affect the groundwater system.

·      To ensure that car parking access and garaging for not dominate the street or the site.

·      To integrate parking facilities with the overall site planning and maximise on-site open space.

·      To ensure the development makes adequate provision for service and delivery vehicles, including access circulation, manouvering, safety and headroom.

 

The proposal provides a total of 48 spaces within 2 levels of basement and a portion of the ground level. As assessed by Councils Development Engineer there is a 3 space shortfall in the total vehicle parking provision for the development representing 5.8% of the total parking required.

 

This is a relatively minor deficiency and the following shall also be noted in consideration of this shortfall:

 

-     The retail & residential visitor spaces are shared, which in the context of the likely different time peaks in visitor parking demand for the commercial and residential components is considered to be satisfactory.

-     The site is situated in Kensington town Centre with excellent public transport available.

-     The development is over-compliant with the amount of motorbike parking (3 required 4 proposed) and bicycle parking (29 required 54 proposed). This is considered to adequately compensate for the small vehicle parking deficiency.

 

The parking provision is considered acceptable however a condition has been included requiring a minimum of 2 spaces shall be allocated to the exclusive use by the commercial tenancy as no parking for the retail component has been indicated on the plans.

 

Clause 4.6.9(a) – Habitable Roof Space

Clause 4.6.9(a) aims to create opportunities for habitable roof spaces as well as opportunities to conceal mechanical structures such as lift overruns and service plants. The relevant objectives to the current proposal include:

 

·      To ensure habitable roof spaces and roof plant and service areas are not visible from adjoining public roads or private property.

·      To ensure that habitable roof spaces are a result of roof forms rather than ‘pseudo’ storeys.

 

The proposed roof space is seen as a positive contribution to the public domain of the town centre, the proposal satisfies the relevant objectives as the habitable roof space is set well back behind the main frontage and rear elevations and the lift overrun is located behind the clerestory roof form at the rear portion of the roof ensuring that these elements will create visual interest without presenting as a dominating presence from adjoining private properties to the east and west.  It is noted that a key performance criteria under this clause is that the application needs to demonstrate that the total floor devoted to habitable roof space does not exceed 40% of the floor below. The roof space has a total floor area of 233m2 and represents a maximum of 40% of the floor below (582sqm).

 

Clause 4.6.11 - Solar Access, Overshadowing & Natural Daylight

 

Clause 4.6.11 of the DCP describes solar access as a major determinant of personal environmental comfort. As such, new development must recognise that existing adjacent buildings require reasonable access to sunlight for living spaces, and private and public open spaces.

 

The relevant objectives of Clause 4.6.11 are:

 

·      To minimise the negative impact of overshadowing on the internal and outdoor areas of neighbouring buildings.

·      To optimise solar access to habitable rooms and to minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

·      To retain the amenity of the public domain by maximising solar access.

 

The site is oriented east-west and therefore poses most significant solar access impact upon those adjoining to the south. Two (2) sites adjoin to the south, at 57-59 Anzac Parade a commercial development with frontage to Anzac Parade and to the south west at No. 47 Boronia Street, a residential flat building.

 

57-59 Anzac Parade, Kensington

To the south of the subject site exists a commercial building at 57-59 Anzac Parade, of two (2) storey scale extending the full length of the site Given the commercial nature of the development, site coverage and the separation afforded by the Balfour Lane pedestrian access walkway, the shadow impact posed upon this site is considered to be generally acceptable and it is not addressed further.

 

47 Boronia Street, Kensington

The proposal will have most notable impact upon solar access to the southern neighbour at 47 Boronia Street. This site comprises a three (3), storey multi-unit building with frontage to Boronia Street. The building has two east facing ground level windows and one north facing ground level balcony that will be affected by the proposed development.

 

The impact of shadow on this neighbour is shown in the diagrams below showing east facing elevation shadow, and the additional shadow to the balcony in plan form

 

Figure 3: Elevation shadow plan showing the additional shadow at 9am cast onto the eastern elevation of flat building at no. 47 Boronia Street

Figure 4: shadow diagram in plan showing the additional shadow cast onto the north facing ground level balcony at 47 Boronia Street.

 

It is considered that solar access impact to this southern neighbour is inevitable in the context of the site, such that any reasonable development outcome in relation to the overall height and building envelope of the development and those in the vicinity would incur similar impacts to the southern neighbour. The proposal is considered satisfactory in relation to the objectives of the DCP, as they relate to solar access for the following reasons:

 

-    The north facing ground level unit configured on an east-west axis means that overshadowing is largley unavoidable

-    The additional overshadowing to the northern elevation is cast predominately onto a blank wall with the additional overshadowing cast onto a small portion of their balcony and the length of time in which overshadowing occurs to this balcony is minor lasting for a period of approimxatley 10 minutes up to around 9:10am

-    The vast majority of the additional overshadowing is a consequence of the complying building envelope and heights at the roof top level as opposed to the encroachments on the maximum building depth at the lower levels

-    The proposed development does not affect solar access to the majority of this apartments balcony;

-    The east facing windows service bedrooms which are traditionally low use rooms and not high use living areas which rely on more solar access.

 

Clause 4.6.12 – Visual Privacy

 

Clause 4.6.12 – Visual Privacy objectives are to minimise the direct overlooking of internal and external living areas through: site layout and building layout; location of windows and balconies; design of windows; and use of screening devices and to ensure adequate visual privacy to residential developments in the Centre and to associated private open space.

 

The key controls under this section of the DCP is to ensure sparation between buildngs of at least 12m and where there is a separation of less than 12m, screening devices such as louvres and opaque glass may used to maximise privacy.

 

The architectural plans demonstrate the proposal achieves greater than 12m separation distances between the rear balcony lines of the proposed developments to the rear elevations of residential buildings opposite to the west (shown in the photos below). For added privacy protection the proposed development has a louvre system installed at the western elevation of balconies over levels 1 to 3 with no such system installed on levels 4 and 5. In order to improve privacy protection to the opposite a condition is included requiring the installation of a louvre system to level 4 and level 5 balconies.              

 

Photo 3: Rear eastern elevation of apartment building at No. 45 Boronia Street which has a setback of approximately 5m to the rear boundary shared with the subject site.

 

Photo 4: Rear elevated ground level balconies of 41 Boronia Street and 43 Boronia Street (at right) which are also setback just over 5m from their rear boundaries.

 

Clause 4.7.2 – Apartment Layout

Clause 4.7.2 of the DCP describes apartment layout is a major design tool for achieving environmental sustainability in terms of natural ventilation and daylight access, and residential amenity in terms of apartment quality.

 

The proposal has to a large extent improved the opportunities for cross-ventilation in the apartments through increasing the depths of the light wells, including additional indentations within the building and providing openings to the lobby areas which will increase the level of natural cross-ventilation.

           

Clause 4.7.3 - Apartment Mix

The main objective of Clause 4.7.3 is to provide a mix of apartment types and size to accommodate a range of household types.

 

DCP – Kensington Town Centre stipulates no more than 40% of the total number of apartments comprise of studio/1 bedroom apartments.  The proposal has an apartment mix of:

 

·      1 bedroom apartments – 9%

·      2 bedroom apartments – 91%

 

The proposed development provides the majority of flats as two bedroom apartments. However, within the apartment mix there are various sizes and configurations of two bedroom apartments that would allow flexibility in their use to cater to different social needs. Further, a condition is included requiring a minimum of 20% of the apartments be designed as accessible and adaptable apartments thus catering for a wider range of occupants.

 

View Loss Assessment:

Loss of outlook and city view was raised by several objectors from the existing buildings at rear along Boronia Street.

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

1.   Quality of Views:

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The view from the affected buildings namely those from lower level dwellings at 41, 43 Boronia Street and low-level apartments to mid-level apartments in the flat buildings at No. 45 & 47 Boronia Street consists primarily of foreground and district views of the lower density residential buildings, shop-top housing along Anzac Parade and vegetation across Kensington and Randwick. From highest level apartment in No. 45 Boronia Street the views are wider in scope and amenity taking in the following views:

 

·      North easterly views of Bondi Junction skyline with Centenial park bushland in the foreground (see photo 5),

·      Easterly views across the subject site (along Goodwood Street) views are predominately over the existing Jacaranda Tree across to the Randwick Racecourse stadium (see photo 6) and

·      South easterly the views are of Randwick Racecourse and across existing buildings (see photo 7)

 

These views are of some scenic value and clearly valued by the residents. These views are distant and interspersed with existing vegetation, and shop-top developments along Anzac Parade at No. 76-82 Anzac Parade, and No. 112-124 Anzac Parade. It is noted an approved shop-top development covers the majority of the block between these two existing shop-top housing developments at 84-108 Anzac Parade as identified in the aerial photo below (bounded in yellow).

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview5624.png

Aerial photo shows the subject site bounded in green, affected sites bounded in red, shop top developments bounded in yellow and Randwick Racecourse.

 

Photo 5: View in a north easterly direction showing bondi junction skyline, centenial park trees and shop top housing at No. 76-82 Anzac Parade.

Photo 6: View in an easterly direction directly over the site showing the Racecours stadium in front and Randwick Racecourse at right

Photo 7: Existing shop top housing development at No. 112 Anzac Parade

 


2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The view is obtained across the rear boundary which is generally considered worthy of preservation subject to the assessment against the planning principle having due regard to the extent of impact and the reasonableness of the development.

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The proposed development will have a maximum height (RL52.51) which is at a similar overall height to the identified existing shop top housing developments at No. 112-124 Anzac Parade (RL52.92) and 76-82 Anzac Parade (RL52.05). The proposal also has a similar height to the approved shop-top housing develoment at No. 86- 108 Anzac Parade (RL52.99). This will mean that the views of the Randwick Racecourse shown in the photos above will be lost. The retained views are in a more north-easterly and south-easterly direction shown in the photos below.

 

Photo 8: north easterley view likely to be retained.

Photo 9: south easterly view likely to be retained.

 

The view loss from these high level apartments is considered to be severe.

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

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

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The application complies with the applicable planning controls in respect of maximum % of building envelope and maximum height. Although it does not comply with the building depth for certain sections of the development, these non-compliances will have no appreciable benefit of being able to retain any of these district elements from these apartments. Moreover, the articulation provided within the building by virtue of the redistribution of the building envelope responds well to both the streetscape and minimises impacts of visual bulk and scale upon neighboring properties and is supported on the basis of good planning principles of urban design. It is also considered that the degree to which the development would have to be reduced in height would be significantly below the DCP controls and RLEP standards. This means that a lower height would not only be at odds with the applicable maximum height limit, but would also result in a less appropriate built form given the context of surrounding development.

 

The fundamental question is whether a complying building in terms of building depth should be insisted upon given the value and quality of the view retained the extent of the view and the context of the view. One must also have regard to the extent and distance to the view and the visibility or prominence of the view and from where it is obtained. Although the Racecourse view is of value and interest and experienced from the primary internal and external living spaces, it is distant and perceived across the eastern side of Anzac Parade which have existing and approved developments permitted to similar heights at which the development is sought. The views that would be retained from these apartments would essentially be across Goodwood Avenue towards the Randwick Racecourse Stadium which does not contain the same quality of view and therefore of limited scenic importance as that of the Racecourse proper. The proposal is compliant with the maximum height control and is a reasonable design response that is consistent with the planning objectives for the site. Furthermore, it is a skillful design which has minimised impacts upon adjacent properties by the careful distribution of its massing across the site. Given the above, it is considered that the resultant view loss is acceptable in the circumstances.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and is considered to be acceptable. Approval of the development is considered acceptable as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned).

 

The variation from the maximum building depth requirements of the RDCP have been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report including that the proposals redistribution of the building envelope responds well to both the streetscape and neighbouring properties provding articulation within the building as well as adequate separation that minimises impacts of visual bulk and scale upon neighbouring properties and is supported on the basis of good planning principles of urban design.

 

The variation from the numerical car parking control of the RDCP has also been adequately assessed in the Key Issues section above where the shortfall in car parking is considered minor, and can be reasonably demand managed.

 

The view loss whilst severe is considered acceptable in the circumstances.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed development is reasonable, subject to the recommended conditions attached to the DA compliance report.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 414/2014 for Demolition of existing buildings and erection of seven storey shop top housing development (6 storeys with roof level) comprising ground floor retail, 33 dwellings and basement car parking for 48 vehicles, at No. 47-53A Anzac Parade, Kensington, subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     A minimum 20% of dwellings in the development must be adaptable dwellings and designed and constructed to a minimum Class C Certification under AS 4299 Adaptable Housing.

 

b.     Design details for privacy screens (louvre system) for west facing units’ within Level 4 and 5 must be submitted to Council’s Director of City Planning for approval before a Construction Certificate is issued. The approved design must be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 47 - 53 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D112/14

 

 

Subject:                  4R Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay (DA/633/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/633/2014

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

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing amenities building adjacent to Little Bay Beach including additional unisex toilet, relocate shower platform, and new timber louvres to north eastern sides (Integrated development). Approval from the Office of Environment and Heritage is also required

Ward:                     South

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                        Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Development Assessment has been assessed by external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the subject site is under the care, control and management of Council.

Proposal

 

Proposed minor alterations and additions to the existing public toilet facility and include:

 

·           The removal of the existing shower platform

·           The instillation of a new shower platform at the eastern corner of the buildings

·           Conversion of the existing unisex toilet to a unisex ambulant toilet

·           Provision of an additional unisex toilet cubical

·           New timber louvers to the new toilet cubical along the north and east elevations to match existing and a new plywood wall along the north elevation.

 

Site

 

The site is located approximately 16.4km south-east of Sydney CBD, 5.5km from Maroubra Junction Town Centre. The subject site is located within the Prince Henry developable area (as defined by the Prince Henry Site Masterplan) and Little Bay, described as Lot 97 in DP270427.

 

DSC_0528

Figures 1: Existing amenities structure as viewed from Little Bay Beach

DSC_0519

Figures 2: Existing amenity structure as viewed from top of stairway access

 

DSC_0523

Figures 3: Existing amenities structure as viewed from the base of the access stairs

 

DSC_0532

Figures 4: View of the existing amenities structure from The Coast Golf Course to the south-east

 

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

Amenity-

The modifications to the existing amenities facility allow for the provision of an additional W/C and a new shower platform which is considered to improve the level of service to the increasing number of users of the bay and beach.

 

Appearance-

The existing building is located in a sensitive and prominent location, being positioned adjacent to Little Bay and the associated beachfront. The use of matching materials and the nil increase to the existing height and footprint ensure that the proposal will have no detrimental visual, heritage of amenity impacts. The modest nature of the proposal ensures that the proposal will not disrupt the high level of scenic quality whilst also ensuring that the proposal will not have any environmental impacts.

 

Services

 

The proposal will utilise existing water and sewerage services. A detailed services report accompanies the proposal which confirms that the additional w/c can be accommodated without modification to the existing services.

 


Environmental Impacts

 

The limited nature of the modifications ensures that there will be no encroachment beyond the existing structure, thereby avoiding any potential disturbance to the beachfront, sandstone rock outcrops and associated vegetation. The avoidance of additional excavation by utilising the existing footings also avoids any disturbance of the ground conditions.

 

Heritage

 

The site is a state heritage listed item and concurrence has been received from the NSW Heritage Office. Appropriate conditions of consent and a positive heritage referral have also been received from Council’s heritage officer who is supportive of the proposal.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing amenities building is permissible with Council’s consent subject to approval as integrated development in respect of the works, pursuant to the NSW Heritage Act.

 

The proposal is permissible in the RE1 Public Recreation Zone under the Randwick LEP and is consistent with the relevant objectives of the Zone. The proposed development is for alterations and additions to the Little Bay amenities building (beach restroom facilities). The alterations and additions proposed will not alter the approved building footprint or overall height. The scope of the work is exceptionally minor and includes an additional toilet; a new shower platform; replacement of the toilet wall linings; and general maintenance works. No excavation is proposed as the existing footings are to be retained.

 

The proposal will cater for the growing visitors numbers at Little Bay Beach and will enhance the experience and comfort of beach users as the current facilities are in need of an upgrade.

 

Therefore, the proposal is appropriate from a planning perspective and in the public’s interest.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/633/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing amenities building adjacent to Little Bay Beach including additional unisex toilet, relocate shower platform, and new timber louvers to north eastern sides (Integrated development), subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 4R Coast Hopsital Road, Little Bay

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D113/14

 

 

Subject:                  34 Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/407/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/407/2012/A

Author:                   Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, increase the size of the first floor addition and new attic level, adding bathroom to studio above garage, changes to the roof design of the rear outbuilding, windows on elevations and height of the dwelling house

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Gelder Architects

Owner:                        Mr A B Pezzano and Ms J M Davidson

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview61007.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

This application is seeking to modify the original consent, which was determined at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 11 December 2012 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including a two storey addition to the rear of the dwelling and a garage with attic to the rear of the property. The main issue of this proposal is non-compliance with the original condition of consent relating to the maximum height of rear addition, which must not exceed RL 104.97. The proposed building height of 7.81m (RL 105.82) is considered reasonable for this site, as it is well under the 9.5m building height permitted for semi-detached dwelling under RLEP 2012 and the assessment complies with the other relevant provisions of Council’s DCP, particularly for setbacks and overshadowing. Privacy impact from the proposed upper level windows has also been addressed by this report and it is subject to additional condition to be imposed.

 

1.      Proposal

 

This Section 96 application is currently seeking to modify the approved development in the following manner:

 

Main Dwelling

 

Ground Floor Level

-    Lower the windows sill height of living and dining areas on the southern elevation,

-    Change the floor level from RL 98.59 to 98.21 for the living, kitchen and dining areas,

-    Delete laundry room and relocate to garage,

-    New elevated decking at the rear yard with vergola and BBQ area (maximum height RL 101.51),

-    New blade walls extending from ground level to upper level 1.2m in length on the northern and southern elevations,

-    Replace openings on western elevation to bi-fold doors, and

-    Change materials to face brick wall on the southern elevation.

 

Upper Level

-    Change floor level of the rear extension from RL 102.22 to 101.51,

-    New attic level with floor level of RL 102.82 situated towards the eastern side to accommodate a bedroom,

-    Internal relocation of toilets,

-    Additional study room with new skylight,

-    New row of windows on the southern elevation,

-    Relocate window facing east to the attic level,

-    Reduce the depth of west facing balcony to 300mm and the width to 3.7m,

-    Change external wall height of rear extension to 6m and attic level to 7m,

-    Increase building height to 7.51m (RL 105.52) within the attic addition section with an additional 300mm roof parapet, and

-    Change materials to face brick wall on the southern elevation.

 

Outbuilding

Ground Floor Level

-    New door on the western elevation to access the garbage room, and

-    New laundry room and relocate the toilet to the upper level.

 

First Floor Level

-    New toilet,

-    Increase depth of bay windows on the eastern and western elevations by 279mm, and

-    New aluminium louvres for window on the western elevation.

 

Roof plan

-    Change design of approved roof to mansard roof with flat top (RL 103.43).

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is on the western side of Carrington Road and has a frontage of 7.36m, a depth of 36.575m and area of 273.2m². The site falls from the front to rear with a difference in levels of almost 2m. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi-detached and free standing dwellings and some multi-unit housing with dual access to Hooper Lane. The subject property is a semi-detached dwelling within a group of similar dwellings. The adjoining pair on the northern side is a two storey building and a semi-detached dwelling on the southern side is a one storey building.

 

Figure 1:  Street photograph of the subject site and surrounds

 

3.      Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. As the notification plans did not clearly indicate all of the proposed changes, the objectors attended meetings at Council on 17 and 20 October 2014 to review the plans and the details of proposed changes have been completely acknowledged. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process for the original submission and additional plans:

 

·      32 Carrington Road

 

Issue

Comment

Further extension at the rear by an additional 1m and proposed 3.3m high verandah will result in substantial loss of natural light, loss of privacy and loss of outlook; and create overshadowing and overcrowding. Should the verandah be approved, the height should be limited to 2.5m.

Refer to Part 4 Key Issues of this report for assessment relating to extension of wall on the northern and southern elevations by additional 1.2m.

 

Although the size of the proposed rear verandah is bigger than the size of bullnose verandah at 36 Carrington Road, the height of proposed verandah is much lower than the height of the adjoining verandah on the southern side, which is elevated by 1.2m above the natural ground level and has the total height of 4m. Overshadowing from the proposed rear verandah mostly impacts the rear section of property on the southern side with a shorter shadow casting that allows portion of the adjoining private open space to receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June, which meets the requirements of Council’s DCP.

Total height of modified roof or parapet being RL 105.82 does not comply with original condition of consent no. 3A requiring maximum height of RL 104.97. 

The proposed maximum height of upper level addition being 7.81m is well under the building height permitted for semi-detached dwelling under RLEP 2012, which is 9.5m. The increase has been assessed against the provisions of Council’s DCP, particularly for setbacks and overshadowing, and is considered acceptable. Refer to Part 4 Key Issues of this report for further discussions.

Non-compliance with landscaping and permeable surfaces as a result of rear extension and vergola.

Assessment has been undertaken for landscaping and permeable areas and the proposed development is satisfactory in addressing the DCP requirements. Refer to Table of Compliance, included under a separate cover.

 

·      36 Carrington Road

 

Issue

Comment

Extension of length and bulk of rear addition consisting 1.2m solid brick structure extending from ground to roofline and 3.3m addition of vergola will affect light and amenity, create visual impost and increase overshadowing into primary living spaces.

Refer to discussion above relating to the same matters.

Privacy impact from upper level window on the southern side.

Privacy impact from the proposed upper level window has been addressed in Table of Compliance and it is subject to condition to be imposed in minimising direct overlooking into the objector’s living area windows.

Amendment to the size and end wall of garage will create 2 storey structures creating visual impost and increasing overshadowing to living areas.

The garage with a studio above has been approved with overall height of 5.5m and maximum external wall height of 5.1m. No changes proposed to the height of the garage. Modification relates to changes of the approved roof design to mansard roof with flat top maintaining the approved height of RL 103.43. The upper extension by 1.78m is minimal in size in that the depth of bay windows on the eastern and western elevations has been increased by 279mm.  

 

Revised shadow diagram shows the amended proposal will create substantial increase in overshadowing.

Elevational shadow diagrams provided denote that portion of the objector’s north-facing lounge room window will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June and POS will receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June, which are considered in meeting the requirements of Council’s DCP. Refer to Table of Compliance, included under a separate cover.

Non-compliance with original conditions of consent in relation to total structure height of RL 105.82 (condition 3A) and finishing of rear extension to maximise reflection of daylight (condition 4).

Refer to discussion above for non-compliance to condition 3A relating to the proposed height of the building.

 

Changes to the proposed colours, materials and finishes are considered suitable for the rear addition on the southern elevation. Despite that the walls will not be rendered finish and coloured with a light tone, suitable level of daylight reflected to the adjoining property is still anticipated from the proposed brick material with lighter colour.

 

4.      Key Issues

 

4.1    S.96 Assessment

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The modification to the approved development does not significantly alter the nature of the approved development and the proposed changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which consent was granted for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal consists of modification to the approved additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling, thus the works remain consistent with the original consent. 

 

4.2    Height

The height of rear addition has been reduced to RL 104.21, which complies with condition 3A of the original consent. However, the new attic addition above the lounge room will result a maximum height of RL 105. Due to the existing sloping nature of the site, the total building height visible on the southern elevation, including the additional roof parapet, is 6.7m above the ground. Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 stipulates that the height of the building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown on for the land on the Height of Building Map, which is 9.5m. The proposed height including the new attic addition complies with the building height permitted for semi-detached dwelling. The size and scale of upper level addition is also consistent with the additions in the streetscape and is smaller in proportion as compared to the first floor addition on the adjoining pair of semi at 36 Carrington Road. Further assessment carried out against the relevant provisions of Council’s DCP, such as, setbacks, overshadowing and privacy, has satisfactory outcomes. Refer to Table of Compliance, included in a separate cover.

 

The proposal satisfies the objectives of the LEP under Clause 4.3, to ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality providing that the development does not adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy and overshadowing. Non-compliance to condition 3A of the original consent is considered acceptable and such the condition is recommended for deletion. 

 

4.3    Bulk and Scale

New blade walls attached to the ground level deck by 1.2m in length are proposed that extending from ground level to the upper floor level are proposed as supplementary privacy devices for the decking at the rear. The proposed size of walls is considered excessive for a privacy device and will further increase visual bulk of addition at the rear. Apart from affecting visual amenity, the proposed height of the side blade walls will also contribute to a degree of overshadowing, particularly to the property on the southern side. The proposed blade walls are inappropriate and to satisfy the DCP requirements, privacy screens with the height of 1600mm from the finished floor level of the ground level deck is considered to be sufficient in minimising overlooking and are consistent with the typical screening provided to decking and balcony.

 

The proposed extension of wall at the rear is not supported and recommended for deletion.

 

4.4    79C Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

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

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

Zone R3 - Medium Density Residential

The site is zoned Residential R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent. Refer to Table of Compliance, included under a separate cover.

 

The proposal is consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape and locality while providing for the housing needs within a medium density residential environment and protecting the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring residents.

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Refer to Table of Compliance, included under a separate cover.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment have been addressed in this report.

 

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

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

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

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

The submissions received for this proposal are addressed in Part 3 of this report.

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

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

 

5.      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.

 

6.      Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

7.      Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications have been extensively assessed and resulted in satisfactory outcomes relating to non-compliance with condition 3A of the original consent. The proposal will continue to comply with the controls and objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013 in which coherently consistent with the original development consent. The application, therefore, is recommended for approval subject to the relevant conditions of consent.

 

 

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/407/2012/A by altering internal configuration of the dwelling; increase the size of the first floor addition and new attic level; adding bathroom to studio above garage; and changes to roof design of the rear outbuilding, windows on elevations and height of the dwelling house at 34 Carrington Road, Randwick  in the following manner:

 

A.  Amend the following Conditions 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

Sheet 1

Peter Banfield

12/9/2012

Sheet 2

Peter Banfield

12/9/2012

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

A140955

18 June 2012

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA01 B

Gelder Architecture

21/11/2014

21 November 2014

DA02 B

Material Schedule (Dry Pressed Face Bricks)

N/A

N/A

18 November 2014

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received by Council

Alterations and additions

A200168

30 September 2014

1 October 2014

 

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

 

B.  Delete the following Conditions:

 

·      Condition 3

·      Condition 3A

·      Condition 4

 

C.   Add the following Conditions:

 

Privacy measures

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

 

a.   Windows labelled W05 and W09 on the approved plans shall be raised or obscured to a minimum height of 1600mm above finished floor level.

 

b.   A privacy screen of 1600mm in height above the finished floor level shall be provided to the length of the northern and southern side aspects of the ground floor deck connected to the dining area.

 

Where louvres are being used for obscuring treatment, a minimum of 75% of the required obscured area shall remain obstructed at all times through spacing and fixing of the louvres.

 

Details demonstrating compliance with the above privacy requirements shall be incorporated into the Construction Certificate documentation.

 

48.     The proposed blade wall extensions of 1.2m in length to the rear of the dwelling on the northern and southern sides extending from the ground to the upper floor level must be deleted from the plans. Details of compliance are to be demonstrated in construction certificate plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA - Compliance Report - 34 Carrington Road, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D114/14

 

 

Subject:                  4/104-112 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/694/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/694/2014

Author:                   Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Authorise the fitout and use of the premises as a traditional Thai massage premises with hours of operation from 8am to 10pm Monday to Sunday

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Parichat Paengrisan (Silver Thai Massage)

Owner:                        Megawati Kusuma/YKS Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview66968.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

The subject application seeks to change the use from the use of an existing beauty salon to use as a traditional Thai massage premises. The proposed hours of operation are from 8am to 10pm, Monday to Sunday. As the proposal involves massage services the application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre along Maroubra Road, between Hannan Street and Bruce Bennetts Place. The site is in close proximity to Anzac Parade and is located within a mixed use development.

 

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

 

Use as a Thai Massage Premises

The application seeks to authorise the use of the premises for Traditional Thai massage with associated aromatherapy and reflexology. The applicant has submitted that they were advised by the real estate agent and landlord that approval was not required due to the existing beauty therapy approval granted under DA/556/2011. Further advice was sought from Council in September 2014 whereby the applicant was advised that a development application was required and subsequently lodged the subject application.

 

The proposal consists of a partitioned room separated into three massage spaces divided by curtains. Bi-fold doors are proposed to the three openings towards the internal hallway; however the curtains between the three rooms are to remain.

 

Copies of the qualifications held by the applicant have been submitted to Council, including Traditional Thai Massage, Reflexology and Aromatherapy, however certification for individual staff members has not been provided. A condition of consent has been recommended to ensure that the relevant massage qualifications are held by all existing and new staff members, and copies are to be submitted to Council for record keeping.

 

It is considered that the proposal is for a legitimate massage use and not for the provision of sexual services or the like.

 

Signage

The application refers to the new signage installed. The building identification signage located on the façade was granted approval under DA/556/2011. The top hamper sign located above the footpath can be constructed as Exempt Development under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008 (Codes SEPP). Accordingly the existing signage has been granted approval under previous application or by way of the Codes SEPP.

 

Hours of Operation

The subject application seeks to extend the current hours of operation of 8am to 7pm Monday to Sunday, to 8am to 10pm Monday to Sunday. Approval has been granted previously for use of Shop 4 from 8am to 10pm within DA/317/2003. Due to the nature of the use, it is considered that the proposed hours of operation will not result in any adverse impacts to the adjoining residential and commercial development, and is unlikely to increase noise generation or parking demands above the former approved use. No complaints or objectives have been received for the subject application. The proposed hours of operation are generally consistent with the adjoining commercial premises along this section of Maroubra Road and nearby Anzac Parade.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

It is considered that the proposal seeks use for a legitimate massage premises and not for any form of sexual service use. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 694/2014 to authorise the fitout and use of the premises to a traditional Thai massage premises with hours of operation from 8am to 10pm Monday to Sunday, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

2.     All current massage therapists are required to submit the relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications for approval by Council’s Manager Development Assessment within one month of the date of this determination.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA - Compliance Report Shop 4/104-112 Maroubra Road, Maroubra 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D115/14

 

 

Subject:                  63 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra (DA/616/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/616/2014

Author:                   Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Classic Plans C/- Erol Ozdirik

Owner:                        Matthew and Karen Howard

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview6729.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

1.         Proposal

 

The subject application seeks approval for alterations and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

Amended plans were requested 9 October 2014 including design suggestions to help achieve a more coherent roof from whilst incorporating the modern roof proposed. Draft designs were received 16 October 2014 by Council, with the resultant modifications not achieving a complimentary built form.

 

Amended plans requiring a gabled roof form and modifications to the front façade were requested 24 October 2014. Alternatively, a character study would be required to justify the introduction of a new roof form. A character study was received by Council 30 October 2014.

 

2.         Subject Site and Surroundings

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 218846, No. 63 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra. The site is located on the eastern side of Nagle Avenue, between Fitzgerald Avenue and O’Sullivan Avenue. The dimension and total area of the site are summarised below:

Boundary

Length

Land Area

Northern, side boundary

37.185m

246.6m2

Eastern, rear boundary,

6.56m

Western, Nagle Avenue boundary.

7.91m

Southern, side boundary

The asymmetrical semi-detached party wall contains numerous breaks.

 

The site is generally level with a slight slope towards the street from the rear.

 

The subject site contains a hipped roof single storey semi-detached dwelling with swimming pool and shed to the rear and carport within the front setback. The adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 65 Nagle Avenue contains a first floor addition with a gabled roof form. The semi-detached dwellings are asymmetrical, however present to the street as symmetrical semi-detached dwellings.

 

The streetscape is predominantly characterised by one and two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. Development within the vicinity of the site generally maintains a consistent postwar architectural style and roof form. The locality is experiencing a gradual transition whereby the postwar built form is being sympathetically renovated to retain the predominant built form whilst updating the external housing materials. 

Description: C:\Documents and Settings\porters\Desktop\63 Nagle Avenue.jpg

Figure 1: Subject semi-detached dwellings. Subject site located on the left.

 

3.         Relevant Site History

 

DA/913/2000

Approval granted for alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling including a new front fence on 27 November 2000.

DA/127/2006

Approval granted for construction of a new front carport on 26 April 2006.

CDC/76/2010

Approval granted for construction of a new inground swimming pool.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

65 Nagle Avenue (Submitted by Malleys Lawyers)

 

·           The proposal infringes on the cross easement and the easement for support rights of 65 Nagle Avenue.

 

As supplied by the objector, the abovementioned easements are created for the use of both sites in relation to the supporting party wall and does not favour one semi-detached over the other.

 

·           The roof guttering of 65 Nagle Avenue overhangs onto the subject site and the objector claims ‘possession and existing user rights’.

 

The approval granted for the objectors’ property by Council under DA/2000/10, Condition 4, required that no part of the structure was to encroach onto the adjoining premises. The applicant and the objector both submit that 65 Nagle Avenue encroaches onto the subject site. The encroachment of the site has not been addressed by the applicant, and the plans submitted indicate that the proposal will either interfere or require removal of the encroaching structure, as shown on the Section C-C plan; however the full extent of the interference of the neighbour’s dwelling is not known. The proposal has not addressed this issue, and given that the proposal will result in a modification to the neighbour’s dwelling, has not established if consent required from the adjoining owners in order to construct the proposed development.

 

·           The proposal appears to trespass onto 65 Nagle Avenue.

 

Given the issues raised above, the proposal is deficient in details regarding possible encroachment of the roof form and overhanging from 65 Nagle Avenue. The Section B-B and Section C-C plans demonstrate potential mutual overhanging, however the proposal has not provided adequate details to determine whether the necessary consents have been provided to carry out the proposal works

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

·      R2 Low Density Zone Objectives

In accordance with Clause 2.3 of the RLEP, Council must have regard to the zone objectives within the respective zone. The applicable objectives are as follows:

 

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 the residents.

 

The proposed development seeks a first floor addition with a pitched roof. The angle of the roof results in a higher pitch than the adjoining semi-detached, as shown below:

 

      Figure 1: Proposal as viewed from the street. New additions highlighted in pink.

 

Both Council and the applicant agree that the proposed development seeks to set a new precedent and is dissimilar from the predominant built form of the streetscape.

 

The objectives of the zone require that new development must recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form, or in precincts undergoing transition, elements that contribute to the desired future character of the area. Accordingly, whilst innovative development is encouraged, the new built form must have regard to the existing built form so that the development is not jarring and unsympathetic when viewed by in the streetscape.

 

The planning principle that provides guidance to assess a proposal against the desirable elements of the streetscape and built form was established by Senior Commissioner J Roseth in Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005). SC Roseth provides that such an assessment requires an analysis of what constitutes ‘compatible design’ within the streetscape and built form, as there is often confusion regarding ‘sameness’ and ‘incompatibility’ presented to the LEC. It is therefore useful to implement the following planning principle to further inform the assessment of the subject application.

 

The following is an analysis of the compatibility of the subject development against the urban character of the surroundings, as established in the NSW Land and Environment Court case Project Venture Developments v Pittwater Council (2005).

 

1.       Are the physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include noise, overlooking, overshadowing and constraining development potential.

 

It is considered that the proposal’s physical impact on the surrounding development has not provided adequate information regarding the encroachment and potential modification of the neighbouring eaves at 65 Nagle Avenue and how the proposal mitigates these issues.

 

2.       Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

 

As stated by SC Roseth within the planning principle, to achieve harmony with the surrounding buildings, new development should:

 

‘…be visually compatible with its context, it should contain, or at least respond to, the essential elements that make up the character of the surrounding urban environment’.

 

The applicant has provided that the ‘local area’ constitutes the Maroubra locality, and has provided some examples within Maroubra of similar first floor additions. However, in accordance with Veloshin v Randwick Council (2007) (planning principle for the assessment of height bulk and scale) and Peninsula Developments Australia Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council (2011), it has been established through the LEC that the ‘local area’ and relevant ‘character’ of a proposal is defined as the visual catchment of which the development is viewed upon. 

 

The built form within Nagle Avenue comprises one and two storey detached cottage dwellings and semi-detached dwellings which are representative of the postwar period architectural style. Both symmetrical and asymmetrical semi-detached dwellings exist within the visual catchment; however these generally present as symmetrical when viewed from the street. The streetscape of Nagle Avenue demonstrates a high degree of consistency in form, scale and material. As shown below, the integrity of the built form has been retained, specifically in relation to the roof form, setbacks, frontages and street facades.

 

Nagle Avenue is experiencing a slow upgrade of the dwelling house stock through alterations and additions to the built form, including first floor additions to semi-detached dwellings. The alterations made within the visual catchment have consistently preserved the physical built form, and first floor additions to the semi-detached dwellings are either substantially hidden behind the hipped roof or are sympathetically designed to respond to the character of the streetscape with gabled roofs. Modern rendered finishes are now present within the street as part of the alterations; however do not detract from or diminish the built form.

 

The relevant visual catchment of Nagle Avenue is shown below with the proposal inserted:

 

Description: Streetscape 4

Description: Streetscape 5

Figure 2: Visual catchment of the subject site from 53 to 67 Nagle Avenue and from the west facing the subject site, from 76 to 62 Nagle Avenue.

 

As shown above, the proposed skillion roof starkly contrasts with the hipped roof form of the semi-detached dwelling and subject visual catchment. The front façade design including a large blank wall space, far alignment of the modern window shape, additional windows/skylights running through the middle of the semi-detached pairing and the overhang of the first floor addition along the side setback; also juxtaposes in design with the existing adjoining dwellings. These aspects of the proposed design compound to result in a dominant first floor addition that overwhelms the semi-detached dwelling. It is considered that the proposed design would result in a dissonance of mass and detract from the architectural character of semis.

 

The applicant provides that ‘the horse has bolted’ in relation to an inconsistency of approved first floor additions on semi-detached dwellings, and that the subject proposal is therefore not required to comply with the RLEP 2012 or the RDCP 2013.

 

To address this issue, SC Roseth provides instances where compatibility between the existing and proposed built form is not required or is not always desirable in the following instances:

 

Where extreme differences in scale and appearance produce great urban design involving landmark buildings,

Where the planning controls envisage a change of character;

Or where urban environments are so unattractive that it is best not to reproduce them.

 

The proposed development is not for the purposes of a great urban design outcome for a landmark building, is not affected by planning controls that specifically envisage a deliberate change of built form character and is not within an urban streetscape which is so unattractive that the objectives and controls of the relevant instruments should be ignored. These exceptions therefore do not apply.

 

The above analysis shows that Council has maintained the built form by consistently applying the relevant objectives and controls of the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 to development surrounding the subject site. As discussed below within Section 4: Building design and Section 4.2, the planning controls that apply to the site seek to preserve the existing character of the area, and new development is therefore required to maintain the predominant built form through a sympathetic and complimentary design.

 

Through applying the above planning principle to determine the compatibility of development within the urban environment, the proposed development is considered incompatible and incongruous in its setting, and cannot exist in harmony with the dominant character of the visual catchment. The proposal therefore does fails to meet the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone, and would result in a detrimental impact on the amenity of residents within the street.

 

·      Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio

 

In accordance with the objectives of Clause 4.4, Council must be satisfied that the development:

 

Ensures that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality;

Ensures that buildings are well articulated and responds to environmental and energy needs;

Ensures 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 maximum FSR for a semi-detached dwelling on a lot less than 300sqm is assessed on merit as per Clause 4.4 2(B). The subject site proposes a FSR of 0.67:1.

 

As discussed above under ‘Low Density Residential Zone Objectives’, the proposal is considered incompatible and uncharacteristic with regard to both the streetscape and adjoining semi-detached dwelling through the dominance of the first floor roof form and front façade. The roof form is not compatible with the adjacent dwellings within the urban block and bluntly incompatible with the hipped roof style of the adjoining semi-detached dwellings and the predominant gabled roof first floor additions.

 

The unsympathetic nature of the built form as viewed from the street is a result of the introduction of an irregular roof form, overhanging first floor addition over the ground floor, blank front façade and starkly contrasting window/skylight elements. It is considered that these elements result in excessive visual bulk presented to the street and is incompatible with the desired future character, thereby failing to satisfy the above objectives, and should not be supported.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan: C1 Low Density Residential

 

·      Part 4 Building Design

 

The RDCP 2013 requires that the form and massing of development needs to respond to the site characteristics and surrounding built context. Façade composition should be carefully designed to achieve an appropriate streetscape outcome. The objectives are as follows:

 

To ensure the form, scale, massing and proportions of dwellings recognise and adapt to the characteristics of a site in terms of topography, configuration, orientation and surrounding natural and built context.

To ensure building facades are articulated to complement or enhance the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character.

To encourage contemporary and innovative designs to establish a preferred neighbourhood character in new and transitional residential areas.

 

As discussed above within ‘Low Density Residential Zone Objectives’, the proposal fails to meet these objectives, seeks an inappropriate built form and fails to recognise and adapt to the characteristics of both its complimentary adjoining semi-detached dwelling and the built context.

 

The contemporary style proposed is not within an area in transition and Council’s controls under Part 4.2, discussed below; do not seek to establish a new neighbourhood character. The proposal is considered to detract from the existing streetscape, ignores the architectural relationship of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and does not meet the objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

·    Part 4.2 Additional Design Provisions for Semi-Detached Dwellings

 

The subject dwelling is part of a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Whilst the semi-detached dwellings are an asymmetrical pair, when viewed from the street the pairs present as symmetrical. Part 4.2 of the RDCP 2013 is therefore applicable.

 

The objectives of the RDCP 2013 require the following:

 

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

 

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

 

The intent of the objectives is to ensure that new additions respect and enhance the symmetrical nature between the paired dwellings. Council’s controls specifically require that proposed development must be based on a detailed site and contextual analysis whereby the bulk of first floor additions should be setback from the street frontage and first floor additions should use a low profile roof that is visually second to the existing roof. Alternatively, visible additions are to be compatible with the style and period of the existing roof to be retained. This is particularly relevant when proposing a new roof form.

 

One example has been provided by the applicant of a new roof form at 78 Nagle Avenue and is shown below with its semi-detached pairing:

 

Description: 78 and 76 Nagle

Figure 3: Western view of the semi-detached dwelling at 78 Nagle Avenue (left image) as provided by Classic Plans and an image (right image) of 76 Nagle Avenue.

 

The semi-detached dwellings at 78 and 76 Nagle Avenue both provide examples of sympathetic first floor extensions which meet the objectives of the RDCP 2013. As argued by the applicant, the first floor addition at 78 Nagle is a different roof form. This has been achieved by setting the addition well behind the front of the dwelling and substantial to the rear, as per the controls. It is considered that the flat roof has demonstrated that a sympathetic modern addition can be achieved through compliance with the controls in the RDCP 2013 for semi-detached dwellings.

 

It is considered that a detailed analysis of the approved addition at 65 Nagle Avenue and existing semi-detached dwelling has not been adequately undertaken in order to formulate a design that results in an integrated architectural outcome. The proposed dominance caused by the roof form and first floor overhang of the addition is not compatible with the style of roof shared by the pairing. The blank street façade of the addition, abstract window design and prominent skylight additions presented to the street further compound the incompatibility of the proposed design, and detracts from the streetscape.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed design does not have regard to its semi-detached pairing and does not meet the objectives and controls of the RDCP 2013, and should not be supported. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject application has been recommended for refusal as the proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone and Floor Space Ratio of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, and fails to recognise and integrate desirable streetscape elements into the proposal. The proposal does not comply with the controls of the Randwick Development Plan 2013 in that the proposal does not have regard to its adjoining semi-detached pairing and adjacent dwelling, resulting in an inconsistent and inappropriate built form. Further, the proposal is deficient in information required to assess the physical impacts on the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 65 Nagle Avenue.

 

The proposed development is inconsistent with Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 in that the development detracts from the environmental and aesthetic qualities and compromises the amenity of the street and adjoining site.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.  That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 616/2014 for Alterations and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling at No. 63 Nagle Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

1.       The proposed development is not consistent with the relevant objectives of R2 Low Density Residential zone under Clause 2.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, in that the resultant bulk and scale of the proposed development is inconsistent and incompatible with the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form and will adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

 

2.      The proposed development does not comply with the Building Design objectives and controls of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, C1 Low Density Residential, sub-section 4. The proposed development fails to respond to the specific site characteristics of the surrounding built form context and will adversely impact the amenity with respect to the visual bulk of the building as viewed from the street.

 

3.      The proposed development does not comply with the objectives and controls regarding Additional Design Requirements for Semi-Detached Dwellings of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, C1 Low Density Residential, sub-section 4.2. The proposed development fails to recognise its semi-detached pairing and is visually incompatible with the building to which it is attached.

 

4.      The proposal has not provided adequate information in relation to the potential to modify structures associated with the adjoining semi detached dwelling.

 

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

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/616/2014 - 63 Nagle Avenue, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D116/14

 

 

Subject:                  6 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (DA/439/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/439/2014

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                    Substantial alterations and additions to the existing attached dual occupancy and conversion to a dwelling house with rear swimming pool and roof terrace.  

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Melocco & Moore Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Skye & Paul Heller

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview6194.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed development exceeds the the development standard for the maximum height of buildings under Clause 4.3(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for substantial alterations and addition to the existing attached dual occupancy and convert the use to a dwelling house.  The proposal also includes a new swimming pool to the rear of the property, excavation works, retaining wall,planter boxes and associated landscape works.

 

Level 1 - Ground Floor Street Level:

The double garage is maintained at the front and new storeroom and guest bedroom are proposed behind the car spaces with a door to a central lobby in between.  The wall to the western side of the garage is extended for a new bin store area.

 

The lobby leads to a new rumpus room and a small store and a bathroom at the rear and a new internal stair for access to the ground floor. The existing stair and lobby is to the demolished to create a side courtyard/light well with landscaping on this side of the house. The existing front and side setbacks are unchanged.

 

Level 2 - First Floor level:

The existing eastern side access stairs from the street entry to the front entrance of the dwelling are maintained. The existing first floor and the roof is demolished and rebuilt. The existing columns and beams and the terrace area are also demolished. 

 

The side entry to the house adjoins a new courtyard garden/light well. The front terrace, dining room and the living room are retained at the front of the dwelling, except for the curved planter that is removed and the corner wall of the living room is curved to widen the side entry to the house.

 

A new galley style kitchen is proposed on the western side adjoining the dining room and a lounge area is proposed at the rear.  Part of the existing living room and bathroom and external stair on the north east corner of this level is removed to create a covered outdoor terrace on the corner and the existing study is converted to a WC and laundry.  A new internal stair is provided to the eastern side to access the basement and second floor level. The existing front and side setbacks are unchanged. The rear setback to the lounge room wall will be increased by 600m compared with the existing rear wall.

 

Level 3 - Second Floor level:

The building foot print for this level is similar to the floor plate of the first floor.  This level includes the master bedroom and ensuite to the front and 3 additional bedrooms and a bathroom to the rear of the dwelling. 

 

Narrow planters are provided to the front and rear running the full width of the building and a void is provided to the west side of the kitchen.

 

Level 4: Third floor level

This level is located over the rear half of the house and comprises access via the internal stair. It includes a bathroom at the top of the stairs, a lounge area and a bedroom.  An unroofed terrace, roof garden and outdoor living area are proposed to the front of the dwelling and a roof patio area is proposed to the rear of the dwelling.  

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 13 October 2014 in response to the requests made by Councils and to address a number of issues raised by the neighbouring residents.  The following amendments were made:

 

·      Reduction in overall building height by 300mm with new roof shape;

·      Reduction in FSR;

·      Increase in setbacks of the front & rear walls to levels 2, 3 & 4,

·      Front portion of building shifted by 1m to the central courtyard,

·      Kitchen on level 2 & rear bedroom wing on level 3 reduced in length by 500mm,

·      Rear balcony on level 4 is deleted;

·      Footprint on level 4 is reduced in size; and

·   Roof terrace reduced in size and the outdoor living area is replaced with a non trafficable roof garden.

 

The assessment is based on these amended plans.

 

Site

 

The site is described as Lot 9 in DP 7057, known as 6 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly. The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.  The site is restricted to 9.5 metres in height and 0.75:1 in floor space. 

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Eastbourne Avenue east of the corner of Bruce Lane.  This site is irregular in shape with a total site area of 430.4m².  The site has an oblique frontage of 12.73mm to Eastbourne Avenue, boundary depths of 36.98 along the western side boundary and 37.81m along the eastern side boundary and an oblique angle to the rear boundary of 12.4m.  The site features a fall in topography over several terraced levels from the rear to the front of the site to the effect of approximately five (5) metres.

 

The site is currently occupied by a 3 storey attached dual occupancy development. The ground/basement level contains a double garage car space with storage rooms and a bathroom with internal access at ground level, the first floor level contain one dwelling and second floor level contains the second dwelling. The front entry to the dual occupancy is on the eastern side of the building with direct access from Eastbourne Avenue.  Refer to figure 1a below.

8 Eastbourne Ave

 
 


6 Eastbourne Ave

 

4-4a Eastbourne Ave

 

2 Eastbourne Ave

 

Figure 1a: Photo of the exisitng subject site and adjoining buildings.

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by a mixture of single, 2 and 3 storey semi-detached and detached dwelling housings, attached dual occupancy developments and a four storey residential flat building on the corner of Eastbourne Avenue and Bruce Lane.  Immediately to the east of the subject site at No. 8 Eastbourne Avenue is a 3 storey semi-detached dwelling house and to the west at No. 4a Eastbourne Avenue is also a 3 storey semi-detached dwelling house.   The garages to these dwellings are accessed from the ground level.

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification on two occasions. As a result of the first notification period, 9 submissions were received and on the second occasion 14 submissions were received:

 

Submissions received on the first occasion are as follows:

Unit 3/2 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

4A Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (submission prepared by Maitland & Butler Pty Ltd)

8 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

10 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

12 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

14 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

16 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly(submission prepared by Stacks Law firm)

18 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

22 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Submissions Received on the Original Scheme

Nine submissions were received on the original development scheme.  Objections raised in these submissions focused on visual privacy and view loss impacts, non-compliance with building setbacks and height controls, reduced solar access through overshadowing, excessive bulk, scale and massing, and potential precedent for other future developments in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

Submissions received on the second occasion are as follows:

4A Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly (submission prepared by Maitland & Butler Pty Ltd)

12 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

14 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

16 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly (submission prepared by Stacks Law firm)

17A Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

18 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

20 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

22 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

26 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

32 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

34 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

38 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

40 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

42 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

Clovelly Precinct

 

Issue

Comment

Height

The proposed height of 12.3 metres is excessive and non-compliant with the RLEP controls which are set at 9.5 metres for the site.

 

The proposed exception sought to vary the height controls fails to establish valid reasons as to why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary, especially in consideration of prior compliant development consent within the immediate context for dwellings and semidetached residences.

 

The DCP clearly stipulates that height is to be measured from the ground level to the top of the building. Reference to ‘historic’ ground levels as justification for the non-compliance is misleading and irrelevant.

 

The proposed height would create a negative precedent for other properties along Eastbourne Avenue, suggesting that 4 storey developments are appropriate for the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, and therefore changing the character of the neighbourhood.

 

The departure from the height building standard as discussed below is considered to be well founded and is commensurate in form and height with other development in the street.  Refer to photomontage of the streetscape in figures 6 &6a and request to vary development standards in the Key Issues section of this report. 

 

Setbacks

The proposed setbacks at the first floor (being approximately 2 metres forward of the adjoining dwellings), contravenes the DCP controls (clause 3.3.1) which require that front setbacks be consistent with the average setbacks of adjoining dwellings.

 

This inconsistency will result in significant view loss and visual bulk impacts to the adjoining dwellings.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses the front & side setbacks of the proposed development.

Wall Heights

The proposed external building wall heights (being between 7.7 and 9.2 metres) are excessive.

 

Non compliance with the DCP wall height controls cannot be substantiated on the grounds of steeply sloping topography. The slope of the land is approximately

13% from rear to front and such a gradient is considered moderate, not steep.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses the external wall height of the proposed development.

View Sharing

The proposed development will result in significant view loss for neighbouring properties.

 

The revised proposal fails to neither acknowledge the value of views nor demonstrate any steps or measures to mitigate potential view loss, particularly to habitable rooms of neighbouring properties and the public domain. 

 

The addendum to the SEE is misleading and wrongfully represents the impacts on view sharing. The point of reference in the photography that a vignette to water/headland between 4b & 2 Eastbourne Avenue would be retained from an inaccessible corner of the living room of the property is unacceptable.

 

Reduced impacts on views could be achieved through deleting rooftop terrace and garden, removal of planter box on western elevation, reduction in height to 3 storeys and removal of 4th level bedroom.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses view sharing.

 

The amended proposal presents a reasonable outcome that is of commensurate height and setbacks with adjacent development and complies with the provisions of the DCP. When assessed against the view sharing principle, discussed below, the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

Building Design

The structural bulk of the development will be concentrated to the rear/uphill side of the site. This contravenes the DCP which requires that built form respect and follow the natural topography of the site; be stepped/modelled to respond to land gradient; and structural bulk on the uphill/downhill side of the allotment be avoided.

 

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

 

The proposal was amended on 13 October 2014 to respond to initial concerns raised by Council and neighbouring sites. 

 

The proposal complies with the floor space ratio in the LEP, site coverage and landscaping and permeable areas in the DCP. The departure from the height building standard as discussed below is considered to be well founded and is commensurate in form and height with other development in the street.  Refer to photomontage of the streetscape in figures 6 & 6a and request to vary development standards in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Further, it has been demonstrated in this report that the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP have been achieved in that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of the adjoining dwellings (in terms of overshadowing, privacy and view loss) and the desired future character of the locality.

 

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

 

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

 

Inconsistencies with RLEP Aims and Zone Objectives

The proposal is inconsistent with the aims of the RLEP and Zone objectives as it contradicts the desirable elements of the streetscape and built form; is not keeping with neighbourhood character; fails to protect the amenity of surrounding developments; and does not encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Zone R2 Low Density Residential as per the Randwick LEP 2012 and subject to conditions is not considered to result in any unreasonable amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy or views as discussed in the relevant sections of this report.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed development complies with the maximum FSR under the LEP 2012 and the departure from the height building standard in the LEP 2012 as discussed below is considered to be well founded.

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The proposal does not meet criteria for development in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, in terms of minimising visual impact, and protecting the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

The proposal has the potential to create a negative precedent for the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area due to its excessive bulk, scale and height.

 

The design incorporates architectural elements different colours and surfaces textures to the sides and front façades of the dwelling which complements façade articulation and enhances the visual interest to the street frontage.

 

Additionally, the proposed dwelling responds to the size, shape and topography of the subject site by providing adequate landscape areas and appropriate materials, finishes and framing elements that complements the foreshore area.

 

Public Interest

There will be no public/ community benefit as a consequence of the development as the proposal will create a strong precedent for future development that contravenes established planning controls.

 

The development application is an appropriate response to the site and its context and proposes a dwelling house that does not detract from the existing and future character of the neighbourhood and streetscape as exemplified in the numerous contemporary designs previously approved in the locality. Additionally, the proposed dwelling responds to the size, shape and topography of the subject site by providing adequate landscape areas and appropriate materials, finishes and framing elements that complements the foreshore area.

 

The proposal is not considered to be of a bulk that will result in any unreasonable adverse effects on the surrounding area and adjoining residents or be out of character with the scale of the existing streetscape as discussed below in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Accordingly, the proposal is considered to have positive planning and architectural merits.

 

General Objection from 14 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

Council is expected to comply with the laws and regulations at all time. The community voted for Councillors to uphold laws and standards as required by Randwick City Council.

 

If the developers want to break community standards by illegally adding 3-4 metres over the regulated height, then Council staff must refer them to the regulations or perhaps recommend that they move to another country where there is no rule of law.

 

The application has been assessed against the provisions of Section 79C of the EPA Act.  This requires (amongst other matters) that the application is assessed against any relevant controls, which includes the DCP.

 

It should be noted that under S79C, Council must take into account the provisions of Clause 46 of the RLEP 2012 which allows for variations to the development standard. The Act also requires Council to apply development controls in a flexible manner.

 

Revised Notification Plans

Council has failed to upload and make available the revised notification plans as stated in the notification letter received. Residents therefore cannot fully consider the impacts of the amended development. Council is requested to upload a full set of notification plans and extend the notification period in accordance with the objectives set out in Part A3 of the DCP.

 

The original proposal was notified in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As detailed in the report the amended plans represent a less impact in terms of views and amenity to this objector’s property at no. 18 Shackel Avenue.

 

Once Council was advised that the amended notification plans were not added on Council’s web site, the amended plans subsequently were made available.  Also, the objector was contacted and advised that their submissions will be considered in the assessment of this application.

 

3rd Party Appeal in the Land and Environment Court

Should Council approve the development, the Residents Action Group (which opposes the proposal) will be forced to lodge a 3rd Party Appeal in the Land and Environment Court. The applicant’s position, based on current supporting documents is unlikely to be supported.

 

There are no 3rd party rights of appeal allowed on the merits of the proposed development.

Carparking Impacts on Clovelly

Clovelly should have a village feel, as evidenced by 2 staged events along Clovelly Road. Should Council continue to support a village feel, the onsite of higher raised properties will see an automatic demise of such plans.

 

 

Access to Clovelly is already limited to Surfside Parade and Boundary Street. Parking limitations cause frustration to the local community.

 

The proposed car parking for the development is limited to dual capability which means that should the occupant have more than one vehicle, additional burdens will be placed for on-street parking. On this basis, the proposal to convert single family occupancy to dual family occupancy is not supported.

 

The proposal is reducing the parking impacts by converting the development from a dual occupancy to a dwelling house.  The parking requirement for a 3 or more bedroom dwelling is 2 spaces.  The proposed development provides 2 car spaces which meets this requirement. 

Overshadowing

The excessive heights will cause overshadowing to neighbouring properties. It is inconsistent with the ‘village feel’ of Clovelly.

 

The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the DCP solar access control requirements to adjoining sites.  The additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties is mainly across the front of the properties and upon the roadway and will not impact north facing windows and the private open space of the adjoining properties. 

 

 

Key Issues

 

Request to vary development standards

 

Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

The proposal contravenes the development standard for the maximum height of buildings contained in clause 4.3(2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. 

 

The proposed development will be increase the maximum building height from 8.88m (RL 21.40) to 12.3m (RL 24.81) from the basement level to top of the roof profile at the highest point. The height of the proposal exceeds the 9.5 metre height limit by 2.8m.

 

Clause 4.3 of the LEP nominates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum building height as shown on the map is 9.5m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

9.5m

Existing Building height

8.88m

Proposed Building height

12.3m

Excess above RLEP Standard

29.47%

 

***A number of objections were received from the neighbouring properties in relation to the noncompliance with the building height control in the LEP.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the standard is detailed below:

 

The Development Standard and the Variation Sought.

 

Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings

Clause 4.3(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. A maximum building height of 9.5m applies to this site in accordance with the Height of Buildings Map.

 

The following definitions in the LEP are relevant:

 

·      building height (or height of building) means the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.

 

·      ground level (existing) means the existing level of a site at any point.

The height of the building will be 10.45m at the front above RL12.42 to the solid balustrade of the roof terrace at the front, at RL22.87. The height of the building to the upper level roof (RL24.81) above ground level RL12.42 will be 12.3m, and will therefore exceed the height of buildings standard. At the rear of the building it will be approximately 9.5m in height above the higher existing and natural ground level.

 

The Objectives of the Development Standard.

The purpose of the height of buildings standard is stated in the objectives in

 

Clause 4.3(1) of the LEP as follows:

 

Clause 4.3 (1) The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Why the objectives of the standard are achieved.

The proposed development will be of a height and form that is compatible with the existing and emerging character of the area in terms of its height, form and contemporary design.

 

It will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing or view loss. That part of the parapet/balustrade at the front of the building and the roof of the upper level, will not affect views of solar access of the adjoining properties.

 

Is compliance with the development standard unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

 

Yes, because strict compliance with the standard would restrict the development of the land based on the post excavation levels on the site.

 

Based on the existing ground levels prior to the development of the site for the dual occupancy development, the height of the building would be approximately 9.5m, as the site was previously excavated (in 2003) to accommodate the basement garage and associated storage areas. The plans prepared by Alec Pappas Architects, dated July 2001, (prepared for a previous owner) show the existing ground line at or near to the floor level of the first floor level of the building, and the rear courtyard level.

 

Figure 1: Extract from the plans prepared by Alec Pappas Architects, dated July 2001 show the existing ground line at or near to the floor level of the first floor level of the building, and rear courtyard level.

 

The existing ground level is an arbitrary level whereas the natural ground line that previously existed on the site is an actual known level that relates to the natural topography. The natural ground line is still evident along the sides of the building and because the basement level behind the garage is not visible it does not contribute to the height and visual bulk and scale of the building.

 

By positioning the upper level addition over the rear half of the building where the natural ground level is at or close to the first floor level and rear courtyard level, the building height is an appropriate response to the natural slope of the land and would comply with the 9.5m height of buildings standard based on the natural ground levels on the site, prior to development.

 

It would be unreasonable to restrict the development of the land and the height of the building to the post excavation/development levels.

 

Consequently the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

Are there sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard?

 

Yes. The proposal will be consistent with the relevant aims and objectives of the LEP and the height of buildings standard, and the objectives for the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

It will not be excessive in height and will be a scale and design that is appropriate considering the environmental constraints of the site, and that part of the building where the breach of the height of buildings standard occurs will not affect the amenity of the adjoining properties in terms privacy, solar access and views.

 

Notwithstanding the departure from the height standard based on the previous excavated levels of the site, the addition to the house will be of a height and scale that complements the existing and desired future character of development in this low density residential area.

 

Will the proposed development be in the public interest?

 

In accordance with Clause 4.6(4)(a), development consent must not be granted to a development that contravenes a development standard unless Council is satisfied in relation to certain matters as follows:

 

Clause 4.6(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained. The matters required to be addressed by sub clause (3) are addressed in Part 5 and 6 of this submission.

 

The objectives of the R2 Low Density residential Zone are as follows:

 

•      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 public interest is considered in terms of compliance and consistency with the planning controls applicable to a proposed development.

 

The continued use of the land for residential purposes and change of building use from an attached dual occupancy to a dwelling house is consistent with the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone and the proposal will be consistent with the objectives relating to height and floor space ratio of the LEP and objectives and planning controls of the DCP.

 

It will retain the single dwelling character of the area and it will be an appropriate height and scale that complements surrounding buildings and the streetscape, notwithstanding the departure from the height standard of the roof of the upper level addition towards the rear of the house.

 

A variation to the height standard in this case would be in the public interest because the proposed development will be consistent with the objectives of the height of buildings standard and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

 

 

 

Is the exception to the development standard well founded?

 

The height and visual bulk and scale of the additions and the house are acceptable and the height, form and design is appropriate considering the constraints of the site that has been previously excavated and which naturally slopes from the rear to the front.

 

The building and the new upper level addition will not be visually prominent from the coastline and distant foreshores and public areas, and it will only be visible from a distance as a built element of the townscape of this part of Eastbourne Avenue.

 

The height of the building would actually comply with the height standard relative to the natural ground levels on the site, which are confirmed by the natural ground line depicted on the plans for the previous dual occupancy development, and which are still evident on the site on either side of the building, and at the rear.

 

For the reasons outlined in this submission, the objectives of the standard and the zone objectives will be met.

 

The exception to the height of buildings standard is considered to be well founded and Council as the consent authority can be satisfied for the reasons outlined, that the proposal will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the objectives of the zone.

 

The maximum building height of the development has been calculated from the basement level (being the ground level) which results in the proposed development not meeting the 9.5 metre height standard in the Randwick LEP 2012. The applicant has argued, however, that the height of the building would otherwise comply with the 9.5 metre RLEP height limit if the previous ground levels were used (i.e. the ground levels that existed prior to the excavation of the site to accommodate the basement garage and storage areas associated with the dual occupancy). Refer to figures 1 & 2 below.

 

Figure 2: Height measured from the existing basement level.

Figure 3: Height measured from the existing ground levels prior to the development of the site for the dual occupancy development.

 

Discussions of the Land & Environmental Court acknowledge the difficulties in interpreting the height standard due to the broad definition of ground level (existing) in the Standard Instrument LEP. 

 

The following RLEP definitions are relevant to the circumstances of this case:

 

building height (or height of building) means the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.

 

ground level (existing) means the existing level of a site at any point.

 

basement means the space of a building where the floor level of that space is predominantly below ground level (existing) and where the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1 metre above ground level (existing).

 

The key issue in assessing the variation to the height standard is determining what the actual ground level is, upon which to measure the height of the building.

 

The existing building does not occupy the whole of the site, and therefore, given the LEP definition, the ‘ground level’ would be ground level below finished basement level as well as the soil/garden/paved area around the building. This is pertinent because if the height of the proposed development was measured from the existing ground level surrounding the building, the proposal would comply outside of the basement area with the RLEP 9.5 metre height limit. As such, there should be some consideration given to the relationship of the proposed building to its context.  In terms of a merit assessment, the determination of the ground level should be based on its relationship to the overall topography that includes the site and its context and not to the aberrations in height that exist across a site as a result of significant cut and fill.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the test as to the acceptability of the breach is ultimately the extent to which the proposed development suitably meets the objectives of the height standard in the RLEP.  In this regard:

 

·       The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape. The proposed Level 4 is not visible from the street frontage as it is substantially setback from the front boundary. As a result, when viewed from the streetscape, the proposed development reads as a 3 storey building, does not appear as a dominating element, and is consistent with the predominant height and built form of developments along Eastbourne Avenue, and in the immediate locality.  When viewed from the rear, the dwelling reads as a two storey building as level 4 has been incorporated within a roof design that has a dome shaped form. This softens the appearance of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring buildings. Refer to photomontage in figure 6 & 6a.

 

·       The proposed development has been skilfully designed to ensure that amenity impacts on neighbouring properties are minimised by following the topography of the site. The non-complying portion of the development will not adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses in terms of privacy, visual bulk and views as discussed in detail in the relevant sections of this report.

 

·       The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the DCP solar access requirements to adjoining properties.  The additional overshadowing to the adjoining properties is mainly across the front of the properties and upon the roadway and will not impact north facing windows and the private open space of the adjoining properties.  On this basis, the additional over shadowing created by the proposed development is considered acceptable in the circumstances of this case.

 

·       The FSR proposed on the site complies with the control standard in the LEP and does not appear as a dominating element.  The scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling is consistent with other development along Eastbourne Avenue, and in the immediate locality including nearby heritage item as demonstrated in figures 4a & 6.

 

·       Other environmental impacts resulting from the development are considered to be acceptable and comply with the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 as discussed in the compliance report and in following sections of this report.  The proposed development is consistent with the desired future character of the locality as envisaged by the built form controls incorporated in both the LEP & DCP.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard which are:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

·       To enable other land uses that provide facilities or services to meet 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 amended proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing built environment and will not result in unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

The amended proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring properties. The proposed built form serves to maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area.

 

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

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical height standard in this case 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 amended proposal 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 medium density housing forms, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RCDCP 2013)

 

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 controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

Part C1: Low Density Residential

 

Sub-section 3.2 - External Wall Height:

 

Objectives for the external wall height control include ensuring the provision of interesting roof forms which are compatible with the street and the minimisation of bulk in order to limit overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity impacts.

 

A number of objections were received by neighbouring properties objecting to the external wall height of the proposed development.

 

The DCP control limits the external wall height to 8m for sloping sites. The maximum wall height of the dwelling is 10.3m to the front of the dwelling on the western elevation where the site drops significantly. This only occurs for a distance of 1m in width, the remaining parts of the wall to the front section is 7.45m in height from the existing ground level and to the rear the height varies from 7.45m to 9.4m from the existing ground level.  To the eastern side the wall height varies from 7.45m to 9.4m.  The highest point along this side of the wall is localised to the rear section of the dwelling with the wall height transitioning to 7.45m to the far rear section of the wall.

 

The non-compliant sections of the external wall height are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·         The non-compliance is limited to various sections of the wall where the site drops significantly at the front of the dwelling and where the additional fourth level is located.  The wall height towards the front of the dwelling is not dissimilar in height and built form to other dwellings in the streetscape due to the significant drop in the land towards the front of the site and therefore, does not appear as a dominating element. The fourth level in question is localised to the rear of the dwelling and is not visible from the street frontage as it is substantially setback from the front boundary. As a result, when viewed from the streetscape, the proposed development reads as a 3 storey building. When viewed from the rear, the dwelling reads as a two storey building as level 4 has been incorporated within a roof design that has a dome shaped form. This softens the appearance of the dwelling when viewed from neighbouring buildings. Refer to photomontage in figure 6 & 6a below.

 

·         As discussed in various sections of this report the additional wall height area does not contribute to any significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, view loss or overshadowing.

 

·         The dwelling is well articulated with different finishes and materials and a central court yard area is provided to the eastern side of the dwelling which provides visual relief along this elevation.  These design elements will create visual interest to the walls and soften the appearance as viewed from the neighbouring dwellings and the street.

 

Having regard to the above assessment, departure from the external wall height requirement of Council’s DCP is acceptable and consistent with the objectives of the DCP.

 

Sub-section 3.3 - Setbacks

 

Objectives

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

1.     Comply with the minimum side setbacks as follows:

 

Dwelling Houses & Dual Occupancies

(Attached & Detached)

 

Frontage width

Ground storey

First storey

Second storey & above

Frontage over 12m

1200mm

1200mm

1800mm

 

 

Single dwelling

 

Frontage width

DCP control

Existing & Proposed

Compliance

 

Front setback

 

6m or average of adjoining development.

 

 

The front setback along Eastbourne Avenue varies between 6m and up to 10m.

 

Existing =

 

Level 1 (street level) has a varied front setback of approximately 1.1m to 5m.

 

Level 2 has a varied front setback of approximately 4.2m to 8.2m.

 

Level 3 has a varied front setback of approximately 6.9m to 9.2m.

 

Proposed =

 

Level 1 (street level) no changes are proposed.

 

Level 2 has a front varied setback of approximately 5.5m to 9.3m.

 

Level 3 has a front varied setback of approximately 4.9m to 8.8m.

 

Level 4 has a varied setback of approximately 14.9m to 18.6m.

 

1 Consistent with examples of adjoining development.  Refer to comments below.

 

Side setbacks

 

 

 

 

Level 1

 

1200mm

Existing =

Eastern side: Approx. 1.615m and 2.195m.

 

Western side: Approx. 100mm up to 1.75m

 

Proposed =

Eastern side: will not be altered.

 

Western side = The addition to the front is setback Approx. 100mm.

 

Western side does not comply between grids ‘A’ & ‘B’.

 

Level 2 (ground)

 

1200mm

Existing =

 

Eastern side: Approx. 1.2m up to 2.5m

 

Western side: Approx. 980mm up to 1.46m

 

Proposed =

Eastern side: varies from 1.615m and up to 5.35m to the central courtyard

 

Western side: 980mm and 1.46m

 

Eastern side complies.

 

Western side new small wall addition does not comply. The new wall addition to the rear complies.

 

Level 3 (first floor level)

 

 

Any basement or semi-basement protruding less than 1.2m above ground level (finished) will not be counted as a storey.  The basement level between grids ‘A’ & ‘B’ that is immediately above Level 2 only protrudes approximately 900mm from the finished ground level and will not be counted as an additional level.

 

Hence, the control for this level is 1.2m.

 

Existing =

 

Eastern side = Approx. 1.615m and 2.195m.

 

Western side = Approx. 100mm up to 1.75m

 

Proposed =

 

Eastern side = 1.615m and up to approx. 4.95m to the central courtyard.

 

Western side = 1.46m and 2.05m to the centre void area.

 

The eastern and western side setbacks comply on this level.

 

Level 4 (second floor level)

 

1.8m

Eastern side = 1.615m

 

Western side = 2.05m

Eastern side does not comply.

 

Western side complies.

 

Sub-section 3.3.1 - Front setbacks

 

The front setback along Eastbourne Avenue varies between 6m and up to 10m.  Refer to figure 4 below. The proposed development does not change the front setback on Level 1 (street level). 

 

The proposed front setbacks are considered acceptable and will comply with the objectives of the control for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development will be increasing the front setback on Level 2 by removing the existing front balcony structure this will improve ocean views from the first floor living room of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 4a Eastbourn Avenue. Refer to figure 5.

 

·      The setback on Level 3 is generally consistent with the established setbacks in the streetscape as shown in figure 4 & 4a and will not pose as a dominating feature in the streetscape.

 

·      The fourth level is not visible from the street as it is setback significantly to the rear of the dwelling and therefore, the front of the facade will appear as a 3 storey level when view from the street which is consistent with other dwelling houses in the streetscape. 

 

·      The photomontage in figure 4a & 6 demonstrates that the proposed design will be generally with the established setbacks in the streetscape and contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

 

·      The form and massing of the development will complement and enhance the streetscape character as demonstrated in the photomontage in figure 6.

 

Figure 4: shows main front building line along Eastbourne Aveune.

Figure 4a: Photomotage of Eastbourne Avenue, view take across from Clovelly Bay

 

Line dashed line in green indicates the approximate line of the amended building design.

 

Figure 5: Street view showing removal of existing balcony structure on Level 2 and approximate height of the amended building line.

 

Figure 6:  Photomontage of street view with the proposed new development.

 

Sub -section 3.3.2 - Side setbacks

The majority of the development meets the side setback control. However, parts of the eastern and western side of the walls do not meet the above control. 

 

The proposed side setbacks are considered acceptable and will comply with the objectives of the control for the following reasons:

 

·      In relation to Level 1 the addition to the western side of the garage between grids ‘A’ & ‘B’ is very minor and directly abuts onto the neighbour’s garage wall.  This will have no impact on the neighbouring property nor will it result in any significant impacts on the streetscape.

 

·      In relation the non-compliance to the western side wall between grids ‘B’ & ‘C’ on Level 2, the setback already is established and the amended development will be increasing the front setback on this level by removing the existing front balcony structure.  This will improve ocean views from the first floor living room of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 4a Eastbourne Avenue. Refer to figure 5.

 

·      In relation to the eastern side of the wall on level 4, the non-compliant section of the wall will not generate detrimental privacy or shadow impacts on the adjoining properties.  Only one window is provided to this wall which is to a bathroom being a low use room and a setback of 1.615m from this side of the boundary is sufficient separation between the subject site and adjoining dwellings to allow for adequate solar access.  Also, this wall is not visible from the street and therefore, will have no detrimental impacts on the visual presentation of the streetscape.  Refer to figure 4a above. 

 

Further, the basement level is under ground and therefore, the dwelling generally reads as a two storey building at the rear as Level 4 is incorporated within the roof design of the dwelling in the form a dome which softens the appearance as viewed from neighbouring dwellings.  Refer to figure 6a below. 

 

Figure 6a: Photomontage to the rear of the proposed development

 

Overall, strict adherence to the setback control, in this instance, will adversely affect the proposed architectural form without resulting in significant improvement to the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposal demonstrates a carefully composed contemporary design, with staggered wall planes to the front and sides of the building and will significantly improve the streetscape presentation and contribute to enhancing the urban environment within the locality. 

 

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

 

Sub-section 4.6 – Earthworks

 

Objectives

·      To maintain or minimise change to the natural ground levels.

·      To ensure excavation and backfilling of a site do not result in unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing and privacy impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

·      To enable the provision of usable private open space for dwellings with adequate gradient.

·      To ensure earthworks do not result in adverse stormwater impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Controls

i)     Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprint must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a dwelling within this extent of site modification. These requirements do not apply to swimming or spa pool structures.

 

ii)    Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear boundaries.

 

iii)    Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures, particularly where visible from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

iv)    Where it is necessary to construct retaining walls at less than 900mm from the side or rear boundary due to site conditions, retaining walls must be stepped to follow the topography of the land. Each stepping must not exceed a maximum height of 2200mm, as measured from the ground level (existing). In this case, the retaining walls may be incorporated as part of the boundary fence.

 

v)    For sites that slope upwards to the rear with the dwelling elevated above street level, the surface area of any blank retaining walls fronting the street must be minimised. Use a combination of materials to create articulation, and/or incorporate landscaping to visually soften the wall structures.

 

vi)    Any cut and fill outside the building footprints (for the purposes of creating useable private open space) must take the form of terracing following the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at any point on the site. The appropriate extent of site modification will be assessed on a merit basis.

 

vii)   For sites with a significant slope, adopt a split-level design for dwellings to minimise excavation and backfilling.

 

viii)  For sites with a significant slope, design dwellings to minimise the height and extent of any exposed undercroft areas.

 

Part of the rear terrace garden is excavated by a maximum of approximately 1.5m to lower the garden level in order to connect the rear yard with Level 2.  The excavation is required to enable the provision of usable and functional private open space for the occupants of the site.  Retaining walls are provided to the side and rear boundaries to support the excavation works.  The excavation works will not result in any privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

Appropriate conditions are included to ensure that the excavation works are properly guarded and supported to prevent the danger of life, movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings. Adequate conditions have also been included to ensure that adequate provisions are made for drainage.

 

Accordingly, the proposed backfill and excavation works are acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the control. 

 

Sub-clause 5.3 - Visual & Acoustic Privacy

Section 4.5 of the DCP outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for visual and acoustic privacy, specifically as follows:

 

P1      Overlooking of internal living areas and private open spaces of residential development is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and, where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

S1      Where a direct view is available into the private open space of an existing dwelling, outlook from window, balconies, stairs, landings, terraces and decks is obscured or screened within 9m and beyond a 45-degree angle from the plane of the wall containing the opening.

 

S1      Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 


a. Window and door openings

Subject to conditions, majority of the window and door openings are acceptable and will not result in any additional unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.  The new openings to the north and south of the dwelling will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site and front yards and street, respectively.  Also, the extended blade walls to the side of the dwelling at the rear will obscure some of the overlooking into the rear yards of neighbouring properties. 

 

The majority of the window openings to the east and west of the dwelling are acceptable as they are offset from adjoining window openings, are located next to a void area which prevents overlooking into neighbouring properties or the window sill heights of the neighbouring properties is much higher than the subject window opens which prevents overlooking into neighbouring properties. 

 

There are two window openings on Level 3 that may cause privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.  These windows are as follows:

 

Eastern elevation

Level 3, Bedroom 2 – W20 (Casement window)

 

Western elevation

Level 3, Bedroom 3 window – W17 (Awning hung window)

 

To prevent overlooking into the neighbouring properties, it is recommended that a condition be included requiring the casement window W20 to be replaced with an awning hung window.  The window is to be of obscure glazing and is not to be operable by more than 45degree to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties. 

 

It is also recommended that a condition be included requiring window W17 to be of obscure glazing and is not to be operable by more than 45degree to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties. 

 

b. Balconies/decks & roof terraces

The proposed roof terrace area to the western side is acceptable as a 1.2m wide planter box is provided to this side which restricts overlooking into the neighbouring properties.  However, to the eastern side the roof terrace may cause overlooking impacts to the neighbouring dwelling at no. 8 Eastbourne Avenue.  For this reason it is recommended that vertical metal or timber screening to a height of 500mm high be provided above the balustrade to minimise overlooking impacts to this neighbouring property.

A condition is included to ensure that the proposed roof garden is not trafficable.

 

Provided the above design measures are implemented, the proposal will satisfy the objectives and control for visual privacy.

 

Sub-section 5.6 - View Sharing

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted.

 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Council’s Dwellings Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

An assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views is carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court.

 

Step 1. “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

Planner’s comments

 

The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area and obtains views directly to the south of the ocean and Clovelly headlands and ocean views to the south east across the South Pacific Ocean.  Clovelly headlands is considered to be an iconic view.

 

The properties facing Eastbourne Avenue in question identified as directions ‘A’ to ‘C’ in figure 7 below and the properties facing Shackel Avenue in question is identified as directions ‘D’ to ‘E’ in figure 7 below.  The views along Shackel Avenue are obtained to the rear of the dwellings above adjoining development and between buildings. Some of the views are obscured by vegetation.  The views to the affected properties are discussed in detail below.

 

F

 

E

 

D

 

B

 

C

 

A

 
http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview58425.png

Figure 7: Site analysis plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

The properties that are mainly impacted by the proposed development are No.’s 4A Eastbourne Avenue which is located to the west of the subject site as identified in directions ‘B’ & ‘C’ and No.’s 12 Shackel Avenue which is located to the rear (north) at the western end of the subject site as identified in direction ‘D’ & ‘E’.

 

The views to the front of No. 4A Eastbourne Avenue will be retained as identified in directions ‘A’ & ‘B’.  Both properties raised concerns in relation to view loss during notification.

 

Unit 3/2 Eastbourne Avenue which is located two properties from the west of the subject site as identified in direction ‘B’ & ‘C’ will also be impacted by the proposed development; however, the impacts are very minor as identified in figure 9. 

 

This property did not raised concerns in relation to view loss during the second notification period for the amended proposal.

 

No.’s 10 & 14 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly also raised concerns in relation to view loss during notification and there properties where inspected.  There were no specific view impacts identified on these properties as the existing & neighbouring buildings and vegetation to the surrounding properties hinders majority of the views.  No. 10 Shackel Avenue, the distance corridor view of the Clovelly headlands will be retained. Refer to figure 14 below.

 

No.’s 16 & 18 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly also raised concerns in relation to view loss during notification and there properties where inspected.  The site inspection revealed all existing view will be retained. Refer to figure 23, 25 & 26 below.

 

Step 2. “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 


Unit 3/2 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview59225.png

Figure 8: Location plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

Level 4: The views are mainly obtained from the western end of the living room in a south easterly direction.  The views can be obtained in a siting and standing position.  Refer to figure 9 below.

 

Approximate Building line as submitted in the amended plans shown in green

 

Figure 9: View from Level 4 living room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


4A Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

 

Figure 10: Location plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

Level 1 is the ground level garage which will not be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Level 2:

Living room and front balcony: The views are mainly obtained from the western end of the living room and front balcony in a south easterly direction.  Depending where positioned the views can be obtained in a sitting and standing position.  The existing balcony and columns of the subject dwelling currently obscure part of the views.  Refer to figure 11 below.

 

Figure 11: View from Level 1 living room balcony.


Level 3:

Master bedroom and front balcony: The views are mainly obtained from the western end of the master bedroom and front balcony in a south easterly direction. 

Depending where positioned the views can be obtained in a siting and standing position.  Refer to figures 12 below.

 

 

Figure 12: View from upper level bedroom balcony

 

10 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Figure 13: Location plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

Ground:

Rear balcony off living room:  The view is obtained from the rear of the dwelling from the elevated rear balcony in a standing position.  This view also can be obtained from the living room and kitchen and is a corridor view of the ocean and Clovelly headland between No.’s 4b & 2 Eastbourne Avenue as shown in figure 14 below.  The view is distant and is obscured by vegetation and the buildings beyond that face Eastbourne Avenue.

 

Figure 14: View taken from rear balcony.

 

No. 12 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Figure 15: Location plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

Ground:

Living/dining room: The view is obtained from the rear of the dwelling from the living/dining room and elevated rear balcony in a standing position.  The views are corridor views of the ocean and Clovelly headland between No.’s 6 & 4a Eastbourne Avenue and No.’s 4b & 2 Eastbourne Avenue as shown in figures 16, 17 & 18 below.  The views are distant and are obscured by vegetation and the buildings beyond that face Eastbourne Avenue.

 


Rear Balcony: Similar views to the living/dining room. Refer to figure 18 below.

 

Figure 16: View taken from rear living/dining room.

 

 

Note: The objector has indicated in this photo the existing building height as being 9.5m.  However, the survey indicates the maximum building height as being 8.88m.  Council's approximate height limit of 9.5m is dashed in yellow.  The line shown in purple is incorrect.

 

 

Figure 17: View taken from rear living/dining room.

 

 

Figure 18: View taken from rear balcony.

 

No. 14 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Figure 19: Location plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

Ground:

Deck 1: The elevated deck 1 is located to the western end at the rear of the dwelling. There are minor views beyond of Clovelly headland. Refer to figure 20.

 

Deck 2: The elevated deck 1 is located to the eastern end at the rear of the dwelling. There are no views as they are currently obscured by the subject site and vegetation. Refer to figure 21.

 

 

Figure 20: View taken from rear elevated ground floor deck 1.

 

Figure 21: View taken from rear elevated ground floor deck 2.

 

No. 16 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

Figure 22: Location plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

First floor:

 

Rear balcony: The views are obtained from the rear first floor balcony in standing and sitting positions.  Refer to figure 23 below.

 

Figure 23: View taken from rear first floor balcony.

 

No. 18 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Figure 24: Location plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

Ground floor:

Rear balcony: The views are directly to the south and are obtained from the rear elevated balcony in standing and sitting positions.  Refer to figure 25 below.

 

First floor level:

Rear balcony: The views are directly to the south and are obtained from the rear first floor balcony in standing and sitting positions.  Refer to figure 26 below.

 

Figure 25: View taken from rear elevated ground floor balcony.

 

Figure 26: View taken from rear first floor balcony.

 

Step 3. “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

Unit 3/2 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

 

Level 4:

Living room: Majority of the views directly to south and south east of the Ocean and Clovelly headlands will be retained. The amended proposal will result in a very small portion of the ocean views to the south east to be lost.  Refer to figures 9 above.

 

4A Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

 

Level 2:

Living area and front balcony: The proposed development is removing the front balcony and columns on Level 2 which will significantly improve the existing views from the living room and front balcony. Refer to figures 11 above.

 


Level 3:

Master bedroom and front balcony: The master bedroom and front balcony are south facing and the views are in a south easterly direction. The views directly to the south of the ocean and Clovelly headlands will be retained. Part of the views to the south east depending where you are standing and siting within the bedroom and front balcony will be lost, however majority of the eastern views will be retained.   The amended plans show the views being improved and the views lost are considered to be minor to moderate.  Refer to figures 12 above.

 

10 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Ground:

Rear balcony off living room:  Figure 14 above indicates that the obscured distant corridor views of the ocean and Clovelly headland between No.’s 4b & 2 Eastbourne Avenue will be retained and will not be impacted by the proposed development. 

 

12 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Ground:

Living/dining room: Figures 16 & 18 above indicates that the obscured distant corridor views of the ocean and Clovelly headland between No.’s 4b & 2 Eastbourne Avenue will be retained, however the corridor views of the ocean and Clovelly headland between No.’s 6 & 4a Eastbourne will be lost as a result of the proposed development as demonstrated in figure 17. The views lost are considered to be moderate to significant views.  The existing maximum building height is 8.88m.  A compliant development with a height of 9.5m will result in majority of the ocean and Clovelly headland views to be lost. Further, once this property is developed with an additional floor the views will be regained.

 

The views are distant and are obscured by vegetation and the buildings beyond that face Eastbourne Avenue.

 

Rear Balcony: Similar views to the living/dining room. Refer to figure 16, 17 & 18 above.

 

14 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Ground:

Deck 1: Majority of the views are currently obscured by the subject site and vegetation.  Majority of the very minor Clovelly headland views beyond will be retained.  Refer to figure 20.

 

16 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

First floor level:

Rear balcony: The proposed development will not be impacting existing views. The views from the rear balcony and living area directly to south and south east of the Ocean and Clovelly headlands will be retained as demonstrated in figure 23 above.

 

18 Shackel Avenue, Clovelly

 

Ground floor:

Rear deck: The proposed development will not be impacting existing views. The views directly to south of the Ocean and Clovelly headlands from the rear elevated rear deck will be retained as demonstrated in figure 25 above.

 


First floor level:

Rear balcony: The proposed development will not be impacting existing views. The views directly to south of the Ocean and Clovelly headlands from the rear first floor balcony will be retained as demonstrated in figure 26 above.

 

Step 4: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

As part of the assessment process, Council requested that height poles be erected on the subject site to evaluate the proposed impact of the development within the context of the site. These height poles were erected by the applicant and their location verified by a registered surveyor. Following site inspections by Council and with benefits of the height pole, it was suggested that the front setback be increased to reduce the amenity impacts to neighbouring properties in relation to view sharing.  Amended plans were received increasing the front setback by 1m and reducing the height of the building by 300mm. As a result of increasing the front setback the views to No.’s 4a & Unit 3/2 Eastbourne Avenue were improved. Whilst the reduce height did not result in any views being improved the perceived bulk and scale of the dwelling when viewed from adjoining properties and streetscape is improved.

 

As demonstrated in the above assessment, the anticipated view loss to the neighbouring properties is not considered significant given the overall degree of impact. The affected properties along Eastbourne Avenue will retain a significant portion of the views to the south and south east. The existing ocean views to the living room on Level 2 to No. 4a Eastbourne Avenue will be significantly improved.   Majority of the affected properties along Shackel Avenue will maintain majority of their views.  However, no. 12 Shackel Avenue will lose their distant iconic corridor headland view. Whist this view is considered to be a moderate to significant loss, the views will be regained once the site is redeveloped with an additional floor level.

 

The amended development complies with the LEP numerical controls in relation to building FSR.  As discussed in the relevant section of this report the variation to the building height standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012 is considered to be well founded as the height, bulk and scale of the development is compatible with other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood and is an appropriate design that relates to the typography and its context.

 

The photomontage of the street in figure 6 indicates that the proposed development will relates to the contours of the land and is similar in height to adjoining development along Eastbourne Avenue. Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design.

 

The amended development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties by lowering the height of the development and increasing the front and rear setbacks.  Accordingly, the resultant view loss impact is justified.

 


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 site is located within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012.The proposed development seeks to vary the building height standard under Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012. The proposed development has merit and is considered to compatible with the height, bulk and scale of other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood. Relevant controls and objectives within Randwick DCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts have been assessed as being acceptable, subject to proposed conditions of consent. The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality within the foreshore area.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.3(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/439/2014 for substantial alterations and additions to the existing attached dual occupancy and conversion to a dwelling house with rear swimming pool and roof terrace, at No. 6 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     To prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties the following must be implemented:

 

 

i)    Window W17 must be provided with obscure glazing and shall not be operable by more than 45 degree. 

 

ii)   The casement window W20 shall be replaced with an awning hung window. The window must be of obscure glazing and shall not be operable by more than 45 degree. 

 

iii)   To the eastern side of the roof terrace vertical metal or timber screening to a height of 500mm shall be provided above the balustrade.

 

iv)  The roof garden to the front of the dwelling shall not be trafficable.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 6 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D117/14

 

 

Subject:                  54-56 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/277/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/277/2014

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 2 and part 4 storey residential development containing 11 units and 7 townhouses, basement parking for 27 vehicles and associated landscaping and works

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Ideal Marine Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Buvoro Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview62035.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to the Planning Committee as the estimated cost of development exceeds $2 million.

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structures, construction of a part 2/part 4 storey residential flat building and multi dwelling housing development containing 7 townhouses, 11 units, basement carparking for 27 vehicles, landscaping and associated works. The proposal includes the following:

 

Basement Level:

·      Ramp access to car parking for 27 vehicles including 4 disabled spaces.

·      Lift well, meter and pump store areas, bin storage areas and units storage areas

·      Egress stairs to front and rear ground floor level areas.

 

Ground Floor:

·      2 x 2 bedroom units each containing kitchen, living, dining areas, a common bathroom, an en-suite off master bedroom and deck area to the eastern façade fronting Marine Parade.

·      Common area, left and stair access to upper levels

·      Ground floor living areas to town houses 1 – 7 each containing kitchen, living, dining and bathroom areas with outdoor deck areas to northern and southern landscaped areas.

·      Rear communal landscaped area including swimming pool and spa facility.

 

First floor:

·      2 x 2 bedroom units each containing kitchen, living, dining areas, a common bathroom an en-suite off master bedroom and balcony area to the eastern façade fronting Marine Parade.

·      Common area, left and stair access to upper levels.

·      First floor bedroom areas to town houses 1 -7 each containing 3 bedrooms, the master with en-suite and a common bathroom.

·      Juliet balconies to the northern façade and roof planting areas to the southern façade.

 

Second Floor

·      2 x 2 bedroom units each containing kitchen, living, dining areas, a common bathroom an en-suite off master bedroom and balcony area to the eastern façade fronting Marine Parade.

·      Common area, left and stair access to upper levels.

·      2 studio apartments each containing living, bathroom and bed areas with rear balconies to the western façade.

·      Roof garden areas and skylights to town houses 4 -7.

 

Third floor

·      1 x 3 bedroom unit containing kitchen, living, dining areas, a common bathroom, an en-suite and WIR off the master bedroom and balcony area to the eastern façade fronting Marine Parade.

·      Common area, left and stair access to lower levels.

·      2 studio apartments each containing living, bathroom and bed areas with rear balconies to the western façade.

 

The application has undergone numerous modifications in response to issues raised by the Design Review Council and Council officers including:

 

·      An increase in the setback to Marine Parade to 5m from balconies and approximately 7.5m to the outer face of the building.

·      Increasing the central lobby area to provide for better internal amenity to common circulation areas.

·      Reconfiguration of the streetscape presentation to improve the appearance of the development to Marine Parade.

·      Reconfiguration of rear studio apartment designs and inclusion of roof top planting) to enhance outlook from these units and surrounding properties.

·      Inclusion of privacy measures to town houses to minimise impact on adjoining premises including deletion of south facing balconies at first floor level and replacement with roof planting.

·      Provision of skylights and clerestory windows to roof area in incorporate additional natural light to the residential and common areas within the development.

·      A reconfiguration of the rear communal pen space area to ensure that the layout of facilities relate better to existing structures on surrounding properties.

 

The report relates to the amended proposal.

 

Site

 

The Statement of Environmental Effects aptly describes the site characteristics and surrounding environment.

 

 

Figure 1: View of the subject site from Marine Parade.

       

To the north the site is bound by a 3 storey residential flat development and to the south by a two storey dwelling house. Development to the west consists of single and 2 storey detached and semi-detached dwelling houses and the locality consist of older housing stock containing dwelling houses and residential flat building with emerging more contemporary forms of both dwelling house and residential flat construction.

 

The properties in this location enjoy excellent views over to the east to the Pacific Ocean and some elevated units enjoy spectacular views towards Coogee and the Clovelly and Bondi Headlands.

 

Figure 2: Adjoining residential flat development to the north.

Figure 3: Adjoining 2 storey dwelling house to the south

 

Figure 4: Development to the west fronting Wilson Street.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      Unit 1 44 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 4 44 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 12 44 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 14, 44 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 5 50 Marine Parade Maroubra

·      8/50 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      56 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      58 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      6/212 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      9 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      15a Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      15b Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      19 Wilson Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Existing dwellings on site are full of asbestos and no asbestos report has been submitted.

Conditions of consent will ensure an adequate handling of asbestos during demolition an in accordance with WorkCover requirements.

No geotechnical report has been submitted and concerned over damage to surrounding properties.

A preliminary geotechnical report has been submitted which indicates appropriate subsurface conditions. Conditions of consent will also be included to ensure the protection of surrounding properties during demolition, excavation and construction.

Traffic report has major inconsistencies and refers to a development in Fitzgerald Avenue.

The report has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and traffic generation will not adversely affect the surrounding locality.

4 storey development is unacceptable and will create an undesirable precedent in the locality.

The proposed development relates in height reasonably to developments proximate to the site and is within the maximum allowable height limit.

Excessive increase in population will adversely affect privacy from surrounding properties and peaceful lifestyle currently enjoyed.

The proposed development incorporates adequate measures to ensure reasonable mutual levels of privacy and the density of development is consistent with that envisaged under the planning controls for the locality. See also DCP section of this report and Key Issues section of executive summary.

Overshadowing impacts are excessive and combined with other impacts is considered aggressive and unacceptable.

See comments above and Key Issues section of executive summary in relation to overshadowing impacts.

Traffic has increased dramatically over the years and inadequate parking is provided on site.

The proposal provides for more spaces than is required under Councils DCP and is assessed by Council’s Development Engineer as adequate.

Proposed development will exacerbate existing subsurface drainage conditions as did the development at No. 52 Marine Parade.

Councils engineering services unit has assessed this aspect as acceptable and detailed stormwater drainage plans will be a conditional requirement if consent is granted.

Survey detail regarding levels of surrounding ridgelines and cannot be accurately assessed.

Surveyed levels and elevational data was requested and has been submitted showing an accurate relationship between the proposed development and those existing on surrounding properties. The relationship is considered acceptable.

The proposed development is out of character with surrounding development.

The proposed development whilst contemporary in appearance is compatible with the bulk and scale of existing residential flat development in the immediate locality.

The proposal does not take adequate account of the impact of bird nesting areas or the historical use of No. 56 Marine as a school.

The site is not identified containing significant biodiversity and the landscaping plan incorporates substantial new planting. The existing building at No. 56 notwithstanding its historical use is not identified for its heritage significance and is in a state of dilapidation in its current state.

Increased noise levels from the development including from traffic and communal open space areas on the site will cause unreasonable disruption to the surrounding residents and adverse impact on the enjoyment of indoor and outdoor areas.

The traffic impacts have been assessed as by Council’s Development Engineer. See acoustic privacy section of Key Issues section of this report.

Proposal breaches rear setback and external wall height provisions of the DCP and the SEE inadequately addresses the impacts in this regard

See Key Issues section of Executive Summary.

Inconsistency of the development with the design principles of SEPP 65.

See DRP comments in RLEP section of this report.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Section 2.2 outlines the DCP framework in the context of recent changes to the EP and A Act, 1979 which clarify the purpose of DCPs as giving effect to the aims of LEP, facilitating permissible development and achieving the objectives of land use zones under the LEP. The DCP provides for detailed objectives and specific controls. When a development does not comply with the controls, Council may apply a flexible approach where the applicant demonstrates an alternative solution achieves a better planning outcome.

 

External Wall Height

The DCP outlines the following objectives in this regard:

 

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

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

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

 

For development where the maximum height of buildings is 12m, the maximum external wall height is 10.5m. The proposal includes an external wall height of approximately 11.6 exceeding the maximum by approximately 1.1m.

 

In this instance the proposed departure is due to the design intent of moving the bulk of the development to the Marine Parade frontage as the rear component of the development includes 2 storey townhouses. This has enabled a rear alignment of the residential flat component generally consistent with the rear alignment of other existing residential flat developments in the immediate vicinity notwithstanding the fact that the subject site extends about 15m further to the west than the sites containing those existing residential flat buildings. The townhouse component to the rear with a general height of well under 7m is an extremely desirable inclusion having regard to adjoining development to the west which consists primarily of single and 2 storey dwelling houses within a residential R2 low density zone.

 

Nonetheless, as originally submitted the proposal provided limited relief to the proposed 4th level with particularly when viewed from the streetscape and surrounding properties. The amended design incorporates a greater setback of the development to Marine Parade, an increase in the southern side boundary setback, revision of balconies on the front façade to give greater horizontal emphasis to the building and a significant reduction in the excessive solid overhang to the uppermost balcony. The above measures have the effect of reducing substantially the impact to the streetscape of the uppermost level.

 

By virtue of these amended design inclusions the proposal satisfies the stated objectives despite the numerical departure in that:

 

·      The resultant development provides for an interesting roof form and a façade which is compatible with overall height and bulk of existing residential flat development in the streetscape.

·      Compliant ceiling height and clerestory window inclusions will promote light and quality of internal spaces including common circulation areas.

·      The bulk and scale of the development as a whole results in a better urban outcome by achieving compliant solar access levels to surrounding properties and incorporates measures to ensure that acceptable levels of privacy and visual amenity.

 

The following illustration shows the proposed development in the context of the height and bulk of existing development in the streetscape.

 

Figure 5: Streetscape view of the proposed and relative heights of surrounding development in Marine Parade.

 

Rear Setback

The objectives of the DCP in regard to setbacks are:

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

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

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

 

The DCP requires a rear setback of 15% of the allotment depth equivalent to 9m. The proposed development incorporates a rear setback of 5m to the rear western boundary.

 

The following illustration demonstrates the extent of the departure as originally proposed:

 

It is noted that the amended plans provide for a lesser setback of 5m versus 6.214m and the inclusion of 2 highset window openings to the western façade off a bedroom and internal stair areas only as per recommendations from the Design Review Panel).

 

The setback of the development would mostly impact on the dwelling house at No. 19 Wilson Street. The rear wall of this dwelling comes to within about 1m of the rear boundary. The following photo shows the dwelling from the rear yard area of the subject site.

Figure 6: Photo of the rear wall of 19 Wilson Street from subject site.

 

The applicant has provided the following justification for the departure:

 

Despite variation to the minimum rear setback requirements, the proposed development is considered to be entirely consistent with the intent of the control and is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

•   When considering the unusual shape and layout of the site and the proposed development, the non-compliance with the rear setback control is considered to be technical in nature. Given the townhouses are oriented towards the side boundaries, the proposal presents a largely blank side wall elevation to the rear boundary. As depicted at Figure 12, the western elevation provides no window openings (with the exception of ground floor bi-fold doors) oriented to the rear boundary;.   

•   The proposed bi-fold door openings will generally not be visible from adjoining properties and is provided with screening vegetation located along the rear boundary;

•   When considered in context of the whole site, the proposal locates common recreational activities (including pool area) within the 'dogleg' portion of the site. These would typically be located at the rear of the site on a regular allotment and would justify the greater rear setback provisions required by the DCP;

•   Compliance with the rear setback requirement could perhaps be achieved by a scheme that increased building height across the depth of the site. In planning terms this is considered to be far inferior to the proposal.

•   Despite the non-compliance, the proposal provides suitable air circulation, solar access, views, privacy and amenity for future occupants of the proposal and maintains these aspects for existing neighbours.

 

On this basis, given the lack of bulk and scale concerns, high occupant and neighbour amenity values achieved by the proposal and the unusual shape and dimensions of the subject site, the proposal is considered to meet the objectives of the control.

 

Despite the numerical departure the proposed arrangement is considered acceptable for the above and following reasons:

 

•   The interface of a single 2 storey townhouse and rear private open space area of one family represents a more desirable outcome in terms of overshadowing, and preservation of visual and acoustic privacy than might otherwise result from a residential flat type interface of likely greater height with greater capacity for overlooking and a communal use of rear yard area.

•   The deep soil planting intended along this boundary as per the proposed landscape plan will further assist in ensuring adequate visual and acoustic buffers between developments.

•   The proposed arrangement will continue to allow for adequate air circulation and views from this dwelling which will not be impacted by this aspect of the development.

 

The departure is supported on this occasion.

 

Acoustic Privacy 

The objectives of the DCP in regard to acoustic privacy are:

 

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

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

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

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

 

Concern has been raised in submissions in relation to potential for adverse impacts from the outdoor recreation area at the rear of the site which includes pool and spa facilities. The concerns are acknowledged and conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure acceptable noise levels from within the development. The respective conditions will:

 

·      Limit the height of the pool and spa installations and any associated decking to approximate existing ground level at the rear of the site.

·      Limit the hours of use of these facilities to 7.00am – 10.00pm and restrict noise levels to the relevant criteria.

 

Subject to the inclusion of the above conditions, this aspect of the proposal is supported.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The development is generally consistent with the applicable planning controls and is supported as a desirable urban outcome in the locality.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 277/2014 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 2 and part 4 storey residential development containing 11 units and 7 townhouses, basement parking for 27 vehicles and associated landscaping and works at No. 54-56 Marine Parade, 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

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a.     All privacy screens as indicated on the above plans 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 provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     The screens on the southern facade to the lobby at first, second floor levels must have an operable and open design. When operated the louvres shall maintain a minimum openness of 50% so as not to constitute floor area. Detailed drawings at a scale of 1:50 demonstrating compliance are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

c.     The maximum height of the spa, swimming pool and associated deck areas are not to exceed RL 21.7m AHD. Details demonstrating compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

d.     The swimming pool and spa area is not to be used outside the hours of 7.00am and 10.00pm so to ensure reasonable amenity to occupants of the development and those on surrounding properties. The above restrictions must be incorporated into the By-Laws of any Strata Scheme for the development. Documentation of compliance in this regard is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority prior to issue of an occupation certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 54 - 56 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D118/14

 

 

Subject:                  5/96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick (DA/683/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/683/2014

Author:                   Jason  Azzi, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                   Increase the floor area to Unit 5, relocated doors and provide a   retractable clear plastic blind

 

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr Daniel Joannides

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 79691

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as there is a variation of the Floor Space Ratio standard by over 10%.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The subject application seeks approval for the following:

 

·    An increase in the floor area to Unit 5 from 1.42:1 to 1.422:1;

·    Relocated doors and;

·    Provide a retractable clear plastic blind.

 

2.         Subject site and surrounding area

 

The subject property is located on the southern side of St Paul’s Street, two allotments to the west of the intersection of St Paul’s Street and Dudley Street in Randwick (refer Figure 1 above). The site is an irregular parcel with a main frontage to St Pauls Street of approximately 31.5 metres.  An access handle to the rear of the site joins Howard Street with a frontage of 6.38m. The rear boundary of the site adjoins Howard Place (a private road), as well as No. 4 Howard Place and measures 69.525 metres. The eastern and western boundaries of the site measure 58.65 and 54.24 metres respectively. The area of the site is 2,283.8m2, including the access handle to Howard Street (approximately 196m2). The site is a north facing slope (having a fall south to north of approximately 14m) and its elevation gives excellent opportunities for coastal and district views. 

 

Development in the locality is comprised of a wide variety of residential built form.  Adjoining the site to the west of the site is a part one/part two storey dwelling house at No. 94 St Pauls Street, which is stepped up its site.  Immediately adjacent to the west of No. 94 St Pauls Street is a five storey residential flat building circa 1970’s (No. 92 St Pauls Street). Adjacent to east of the site is a two storey dwelling house (14C Dudley Street) and a 2–3 storey multi-unit housing development in two separate buildings known as 14E Dudley Street.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of approximate location of proposal on level 2 (Highlighted in green)

Figure 2: East Elevation of subject site

Figure 3: Street view

 

3.   Site History

 

DA/1082/2004

On 26 July 2005, a deferred commencement consent was granted by Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting for the construction of a multi-unit housing development (in the form of self-contained dwellings) comprising 20 dwellings, car parking for 32 vehicles and an FSR of 1.21:1 to provide accommodation in accordance with State Environmental Planning Policy (Seniors Living) 2004.

DA/1082/2014/A

On 14 February 2006, a Section 96 application to amend the architectural and landscape plans was approved by Council at its Health Building and Planning Committee Meeting.  The application included, amongst other modifications, the removal of privacy screens to balconies of various units imposed by way of the deferred commencement conditions, however, this modification was not supported and the application was approved subject to conditions reinstating the majority of privacy screens to the design.

DA/1082/2004/B

On 10 October 2006, a Section 96 (B) application was approved by the Health Building and Planning Committee Meeting for the modification to amend approved plans for multi-unit housing development in accordance with State Environment Planning Policy for Seniors Living including amongst other modifications an increase in the FSR to 1.42:1.

 

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.

 

Then 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 0.9:1 for the subject site.

 

The FSR resulting from proposed development is 1.422:1. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Existing FSR

1.42:1

Proposed FSR

1.422:1 (additional gross floor area of 2.66m2 to Unit 5)

LEP development standard

0.9:1

% variation to development standard

58%

 

(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:

 

·      The change in Floor Space Ratio is only 0.002:1. A very minor increase.

·      Externally the proposal will have no difference in appearance as viewed from the outside of the building.

·      The proposal will not affect the amenity of the surrounding residences.

·      No impact on overshadowing loss of privacy, increased noise or vibrations.

·      No objections were submitted.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of FSR standard, it is considered that the development achieves a high level of consistency with the objectives in that the size and scale of the existing multi-unit dwelling will not be affected while the proposal does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

Despite the proposal exceeding the relevant development standard, the proposed floor space of the development is considered to be generally acceptable when a merit assessment is undertaken, including for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal will be slightly increasing the floor space ratio on site to approximately 1.422:1. It is considered that the shortfall is minor (2.66m2) and will not contribute to any unreasonable loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties and will not significantly contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development.

·      It is not considered the proposed increase in FSR, relocation of doors and retractable awning will result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the immediately surrounding self-contained units nor will it detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the subject site and the locality.

·      The proposal will continue to be within the building envelope and will therefore not contribute to the height and scale of the existing dwelling.

·      There is adequate private open space to accommodate the recreational needs of the occupants on the existing balcony and the proposal will not adversely impact adjoining properties.

·      The proposal will not result in any significant additional overshadowing to the adjoining premises.

·      Notification was sent out to neighbouring units and properties and no objections were received.

·      The proposed increase in the floor area to Unit 5, relocated doors and retractable clear plastic blind cannot be seen from the street and will maintain the amenity and visual presentation of the existing building (as Figure 4 below).

 

Figure 4: View from subject site to St Pauls Street.

 

It is considered that approval of this development would not compromise the integrity of LEP 2012.

 

The proposed variation of Clause 4.4 is in this case considered to be well founded and proposed development is considered to have merit.

 

(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 objectives in that the slight increase in FSR will not contribute to any unreasonable loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties and will not significantly contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development.

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 R3 – Medium 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 medium density residential environment.

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The minor nature of the proposal retains the amenity of adjoining neighbours. The additional built form will not add additional visual bulk as viewed from the streetscape while the setting and views of the adjoining properties remain unaffected by the proposal

 

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 R3 - Medium 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 increasing the FSR to a multi-unit dwelling that does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development seeks to vary the floor space ratio development standard of Clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012. The proposed development has merit and is not considered to detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the subject site and the locality. The proposal is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.4(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to maximum floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/683/2014 for increase the floor area to Unit 5, relocated doors and provide a retractable clear plastic blind, at No. 5/96-98 St Payls Street, Randwick, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5/96-98 St Pauls Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D119/14

 

 

Subject:                  77-85LH Cooper Street, Maroubra (DA/730/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/730/2014

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Stabilisation of the existing retaining wall along eastern side of Cooper Street (Heritage item)

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Randwick City Council

Owner:                        Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview58208.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The development application (DA) seeks approval to stabilise an existing retaining wall on the eastern side of Cooper Street, Maroubra.  Cooper Street is a two way local road with parking on both sides of the street providing primary access to Maroubra Road.  Council is responsible for the maintenance of local roads under the Roads Act 1993 including retaining walls within the road reserve. The existing wall is located within the public road reserve.

 

The existing wall leans outwards towards the road in a number of sections. There is substantial horizontal movement in the wall which is particularly noticeable at the tallest section of the wall which has extensive cracking and bulging. The structural integrity of the wall has been compromised and it requires measures to improve its stability. Following geotechnical and structural assessment, several stabilisation options were identified with the preferred option involving restraining anchors in conjunction with steel plates. 

 

The proposed works involve drilling through the existing brick retaining wall and insertion of ground anchors into the retained embankment. The anchors are to be fixed to the wall with galvanized dome plates which will be aligned in regular rows between the existing brick piers.

 

Site

 

The subject site is a 60m long retaining wall on the eastern side of Cooper Street between Boyce Road and Galvin Street, Maroubra. The maximum height of the wall is 2.3m above Cooper Street.

 

The existing retaining wall is a brick construction incorporating piers with a stepped top aligning with the topography (refer to Figure 1).

 

The wall supports an embankment mainly comprising sand which slopes back from the top of the wall rising to a concrete footpath enclosed by metal guard rails to the outer street side and abutting private property on the eastern side. Vegetation is growing on the batter above the wall and on the land behind.

 

There is no access from Cooper Street to properties above the retaining wall. All pedestrian access to the properties above the embankment is via an elevated footpath accessed by stairs at its southern and from an unpaved footpath rising from Boyce Street at its northern end (refer to Figure 2).

 

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.

IMG_0013

Figure 1: View of the existing retaining wall

 

IMG_0017

Figure 2: View of the footpath above the retaining wall


Key Issues

 

Heritage

The retaining wall is listed as a heritage item under Schedule 5 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Heritage Impact Statement prepared by GML Heritage was submitted with the development application.

 

The proposed stabilisation works involve installation of six 500mm x 500mm steel plates within each bay to retain the ends of the ground anchors. The proposed works would change the appearance of the wall but are considered to result in the least visual impact compared to other repair options. Council’s heritage advisor reviewed the development application and does not object to the proposed works subject to the inclusion of measures during the repair works to minimise the impact on the heritage significance of the wall. These measures have been included as conditions in the instrument of consent.

 

The proposed stabilisation works would retain the existing heritage fabric of the wall while at the same time addressing its structural defects which if not remedied would result in the collapse of the wall having a far greater impact on its heritage significance. The heritage impacts associated with the repair work are therefore acceptable.

 

Construction Impacts

The proposed works involve drilling through the existing brick wall and the insertion of ground anchors to stabilize the wall. The works are expected to take approximately eight weeks to complete.

 

Access to residential properties

There will be no interruption to access to the residential properties above the embankment as the works will be confined to the brick face of the retaining wall at street level.

 

Vehicle Access and Traffic Management

Temporary road closure during the works will be managed by traffic control personnel. Some of the on-street parking on the eastern side of Cooper Street will not be available as the parking lane would be replaced with a temporary construction zone. 

 

Acoustic

The main source of noise during the construction period would be a result of the core drilling of the brick wall. The soft nature of the ground and the muffling effect of the brickwork would assist in reducing the acoustic impacts. Notwithstanding, it is recommended that instrument of consent include a Construction Noise Management Plan prior to commencement of works to minimise impacts to the surrounding residential area during the construction period.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The estimated cost of the proposed development is $233,750.

 


Conclusion

 

The stabilisation of existing retaining wall is necessary to minimise the risk to the community from the wall collapsing. The existing wall is identified as a heritage item under council’s LEP 2012. A number of repair options were considered as part of Council’s geo-technical and structural assessments. The preferred option which proposes to reinforce the wall with the insertion of ground anchors is considered to have the least impact on the heritage significance of the wall. Whilst the proposed repair works would change the appearance of the wall, the heritage impact is acceptable given it would facilitate the long-term conservation of the retaining wall.

 

 

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. 730/2014 for stabilization works to the existing retaining wall, at Nos. 77-85LH Cooper Street, Maroubra, subject to the following standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 77-85LH Cooper Street, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Development Application Report No. D120/14

 

 

Subject:                  JRPP 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/320/2013/A)

Folder No:                   DA/320/2013/A

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

The subject Section 96 application seeks to modify the approved development through basement car park alterations allowing increase to 283 vehicle spaces, changes to retaining walls within the eastern boundary setback, reconfigure ground floor retail to allow for4 tenancies, increase number of approved units from 100 to 113, reconfigure apartment layouts and increase roof height.

 

The original approval was for demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new part 6 and part 7 storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor retail space, 100 residential dwellings, 3 basement levels of parking, associated site and landscaped works

 

Issues

 

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, as the application is made pursuant to S96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011.

 

This scheme was publicly exhibited and notified and a number of submissions were received from the local residents objecting to the development, mainly on the grounds of excessive height, bulk and scale, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and potential damage to adjoining properties to the east.

 

Subsequent to the notification/exhibition period, a further set of amended plans were submitted to Council.  The plans were amended to address concerns raised by Council’s Design Review Panel. They include;

 

·      reconfiguration of a number of units to improve cross ventilation.

·      relocate garbage chute.

·      removal of domes within awning.

·      replacement of angled roof facing east within screen to plant areas.

·      reconfiguration of roof form.

·      redesign of eastern boundary retaining walls

·      colour backed glass added to Anzac Parade retail façade below floor level.

·      posts added to support cantilever awning to roof.

·      screening added to level 9 and 10.

·      additional “windows” introduced to lobbies to improve light and ventilation

 

These amended plans have not been renotified as they have lessened the amenity impacts on the streetscape and neighbouring properties. They constitute “the current” plans and are therefore the subject of this assessment.

 

The proposed modification would result in the building being increased in height to a maximum of 27.4m well beyond the maximum height limit of 25m pursuant to RLEP 2012. The increase in the overall height of the building is 2.55m higher than that approved and arises from the amended roof form which has a bulky appearance and awkward shape. The proposed roof will compromise the aesthetics of the building by not providing a coherent architectural language and resolution in its overall appearance. The overstated pitched roof form to Anzac Pde and combination of open screening to plant areas to the rear appears piecemeal and does not provide for a coherent expression of the top of the building or is effective in reducing the visual intrusiveness of the service elements  As such, a suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring building to be reduced in height to be more consistent with the approved height and the roof form be redesigned to better integrate with the architectural form of the building.

 

The increase in the number of apartments within the building from 100 to 113 has been achieved by reducing the number of cross through apartments and results in the residential floor plates of the building being dominated by a double loaded arrangement. The use of the “slots” to allow for a double loaded arrangement of the floor plate was not considered by Council in the original assessment of the application as being adequate to allow suitable levels of amenity both in terms of light and ventilation to the apartments. Notwithstanding, the JRPP have accepted this approach as an appropriate design solution. However, the extent of operable glazing to the external walls along the “slots” would appear to be reduced, thereby lessening the ability to provide good levels of light and ventilation. As a significant proportion of the apartments will be reliant on the “slots” for light and ventilation, it is critical that these openings be maximised. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring the amount of operable glazing to be increased consistent with the approved plans.

 

The S96A application seeks to change the method of excavation and departs from the approved Aurecon shoring scheme reverting to a more traditional diaphragm type wall. The basement wall setbacks from the boundary are proposed to be drastically reduced to only 200mm at the southern end and 1600mm at the northern end. A “Root Mapping Report” was prepared by the applicant and indicates that the amount of roots on the subject site would be minimal, and that the extension of the basement would not comprise roots which are critical to the future health and stability of the trees. On this basis, Council’s Landscape officer anticipates that performing the works at the approved setbacks would not have a major impact on any of their root systems. However, by relocating the basement wall closer to the boundary and to the trees, it would result in an unacceptable and unsustainable amount of pruning, with root damage also likely to occur during installation of the ground anchors at such a close setback. The retention of the trees to the east were an essential element of the original approval in that they provided effective screening and softening of the appearance of mass associated with a 7 storey building that extends for a length of almost 100m. The extension of the basement and its amended method of excavation/construction is not supported and is recommended for deletion.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.       

Direction 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 


Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications relating to the roof form, increase in number of apartments and new shops at the ground floor would do not give rise to unacceptable amenity impacts and would generally maintain the physical massing of the approved development, if implemented in accordance with the recommended conditions. The proposed change to the method of excavation and extension of the basement are unacceptable and should be deleted for the proposed modifications.

 

Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Approval of the modification (subject to conditions) will not result in any significant environmental impacts and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the assessment report for the Joint Regional Planning Panel in relation to DA/320/2013/A (84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington) be endorsed by Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

JRPP Report 84 - 108 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

 

 

 


JRPP Report 84 - 108 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Attachment 1

 

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel

(Sydney East Region)

 

JRPP No.

2014SYE103

DA No.

DA/320/2013/A

Local Government area

Randwick City Council

Proposed Development

Section 96 modification of the approved development through basement car park alterations allowing increase to 283 vehicle spaces, changes to retaining walls within the eastern boundary setback, reconfigure ground floor retail to allow for4 tenancies, increase number of approved units from 100 to 113, reconfigure apartment layouts and increase roof height Original consent: Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new part 6 and part 7 storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor retail space, 100 residential dwellings, 3 basement levels of parking, associated site and landscaped works

Street Address

84 - 108 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Applicant

Luxcon 88 Pty Ltd

Owner

Luxcon 88 Pty Ltd

Number of Submissions

 

10

Recommendation

Approval

Report By

Kerry Kyriacou, DA Manager

 

 

1.    Executive Summary

 

Council is in receipt of a Section 96(2) application seeking modification of the consent for DA/320/2013; which was approved by the Joint Regional planning Panel (JRPP) on 27 March 2014. The original approval was for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new part 6 and part 7 storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor retail space, 100 residential dwellings, 3 basement levels of parking, associated site and landscaped works.

 

The Section 96 modification is seeking to amend the basement car park allowing an increase to 283 vehicle spaces, changes to the method of excavation within the eastern boundary setback, reconfigure ground floor retail to allow for 4 tenancies, increase number of approved units from 100 to 113, reconfigure apartment layouts and increase roof height

 

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, as the application is made pursuant to S96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011.

 

This scheme was publicly exhibited and notified and a number of submissions were received from the local residents objecting to the development, mainly on the grounds of excessive height, bulk and scale, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and potential damage to adjoining properties to the east.

 

Subsequent to the notification / exhibition period, a further set of amended plans were submitted to Council.  The plans were amended to address concerns raised by Council’s Design Review Panel. They include;

 

·      reconfiguration of a number of units to improve cross ventilation.

·      relocate garbage chute.

·      removal of domes within awning.

·      replacement of angled roof facing east within screen to plant areas.

·      reconfiguration of roof form.

·      redesign of eastern boundary retaining walls

·      colour backed glass added to Anzac Parade retail façade below floor level.

·      posts added to support cantilever awning to roof.

·      screening added to level 9 and 10.

·      additional “windows” introduced to lobbies to improve light and ventilation

 

These amended plans have not been renotified as they have lessened the amenity impacts on the streetscape and neighbouring properties. They constitute “the current” plans and are therefore the subject of this assessment.

 

The proposed modification would result in the building being increased in height to a maximum of 27.4m well beyond the maximum height limit of 25m pursuant to RLEP 2012. The increase in the overall height of the building is 2.55m higher than that approved and arises from the amended roof form which has a bulky appearance and awkward shape. The proposed roof will compromise the aesthetics of the building by not providing a coherent architectural language and resolution in its overall appearance. The overstated pitched roof form to Anzac Pde and combination of open screening to plant areas to the rear appears piecemeal and does not provide for a coherent expression of the top of the building or is effective in reducing the visual intrusiveness of the service elements  As such, a suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring building to be reduced in height to be more consistent with the approved height and the roof form be redesigned to better integrate with the architectural form of the building.

 

The increase in the number of apartments within the building from 100 to 113 has been achieved by reducing the number of cross through apartments and results in the residential floor plates of the building being dominated by a double loaded arrangement. The use of the “slots” to allow for a double loaded arrangement of the floor plate was not considered by Council in the original assessment of the application as being adequate to allow suitable levels of amenity both in terms of light and ventilation to the apartments. Notwithstanding, the JRPP have accepted this approach as an appropriate design solution. However, the extent of operable glazing to the external walls along the “slots” would appear to be reduced, thereby lessening the ability to provide good levels of light and ventilation. As a significant proportion of the apartments will be reliant on the “slots” for light and ventilation, it is critical that these openings be maximised. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring the amount of operable glazing to be increased consistent with the approved plans.

 

The S96A application seeks to change the method of excavation and departs from the approved Aurecon shoring scheme reverting to a more traditional diaphragm type wall. The basement wall setbacks from the boundary are proposed to be drastically reduced to only 200mm at the southern end and 1600mm at the northern end. A “Root Mapping Report” was prepared by the applicant and indicates that the amount of roots on the subject site would be minimal, and that the extension of the basement would not comprise roots which are critical to the future health and stability of the trees. On this basis, Council’s Landscape officer anticipates that performing the works at the approved setbacks would not have a major impact on any of their root systems. However, by relocating the basement wall closer to the boundary and to the trees, it would result in an unacceptable and unsustainable amount of pruning, with root damage also likely to occur during installation of the ground anchors at such a close setback. The retention of the trees to the east were an essential element of the original approval in that they provided effective screening and softening of the appearance of mass associated with a 7 storey building that extends for a length of almost 100m. The extension of the basement and its amended method of excavation/construction is not supported and is recommended for deletion.

 

The proposed modifications relating to the roof form, increase in number of apartments and new shops at the ground floor would do not give rise to unacceptable amenity impacts and would generally maintain the physical massing of the approved development, if implemented in accordance with the recommended conditions. The proposed change to the method of excavation and extension of the basement are unacceptable and should be deleted for the proposed modifications.

 

2.    The Proposal

 

The current Section 96 application seeks approval for modifications to the approved scheme arising from a change in the mix of apartments and modifications to floor plans at all levels including the basement. 

 

The proposed modifications are detailed below: 

 

Basement 3 (leve1)

 

•   Modify ramp and circulation

•   Modify service and access cores

•   Reconfiguration of car parking spaces (total of 110 spaces)

 

Basement 2 (level 2)

•   Modify ramp and circulation

•   Modify service and access cores

•   Reconfiguration of car parking spaces (total of 101 spaces)

 

Basement 1 (Level 3)

 

•   Escalators removed

•   Modify Ramp to 82

•   Modify service and access cores

•   Reconfiguration of car parking spaces (total of 72 spaces)

 

Ground floor

 

•   Subdivision of retail tenancy into three (3) tenancies

•   Amended levels to shopfront

•   New lift to retail tenancy

•   Escalators removed

•   One residential loading bay removed

•   Substation room modified

 

New mezzanine level

 

·      New gymnasium

 

Levels 5 – 9

 

•   Amend apartment layouts

•   Reduce number of flow through apartments

•   Fenestration changes

•   Increase in total number of units from the approved 100 units to 113 units (increase of13 units).

 

Level 10

 

•   Reconfiguration of unit layouts

•   Use of existing massing within approved roof space for the purposes of bathrooms and circulation space.

 

Roof

 

•   Alteration in roof form mainly to accommodate mechanical plant requirements

•   Results in increase to roof height

 

General

•   Amended excavation/construction method, which results in a tapered setback from the eastern boundary measuring 1.68m in the north-eastern comer to 185mm in the south-eastern corner of the site (notably underground).

 

•   Tiered wall on eastern elevation has been amended to allow for a "mounded" landscaped approach.

 

•   Pool on level 5 has been reduced in size.

 

•   Amended landscape design to accommodate reduced pool and modified rear boundary setback.

 

•   Amended conditions reflecting the above physical modification and other procedural matters.

 

The table below contained in the SEE accompanying the S96 applications summarises the development statistics as approved and proposed to be modified

 

Table 1: Development statistics

 

Proposal Overview

Approved under DA320/2013

Proposed Modification

No. of dwelling units        

100

113

Apartment mix

1 bedroom: 22

2 bedroom: 65

3 bedroom: 13

Total= 100

Studio & 1 bed = 43

2 bed= 49

3 bed= 21

Total = 113 units

 

Max. studio and 1 bed Require: Max of 40%

22/100 = 22%

43/113-38%

Parking

Basement 1 = 68 spaces

Basement 2 = 88 spaces

Basement 3 = 100spaces

Total = 257 spaces

Basement 1 = 72 spaces

Basement 2 = 101 spaces

Basement 3 = 110 spaces

Total = 283 car spaces

Total 52 bicycle spaces

Total10 motorbike spaces

GFA

10,772sqm

 

10,827sqm

Max Building Height and Number of Storeys

25m

6 storeys plus habitable roof

Majority of building =25m

27.5m to architectural roof feature

6 storeys plus habitable roof

(7th storey)

 

The applicant is also seeking to modify the Section 94A Development Contributions condition to allow them to be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card on a pro-rata basis at the excavation/ground works stage and the building construction stage.

 

Amended scheme

 

The applicant has made further amendments to the proposed modification in response to the Design Review panel comments. They include;

 

·      reconfiguration of a number of units to improve cross ventilation.

·      relocate garbage chute.

·      removal of domes within awning.

·      replacement of angled roof facing east within screen to plant areas.

·      reconfiguration of roof form.

·      redesign of eastern boundary retaining walls

·      colour backed glass added to Anzac Parade retail façade below floor level.

·      posts added to support cantilever awning to roof.

·      screening added to level 9 and 10.

·      additional “windows” introduced to lobbies to improve light and ventilation.

 

Approved development DA/320/2013

 

DA/320/2013 was approved by the JRPP on 29 May 2014 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part six (6), part seven (7) storey mixed use development, comprising three (3) basement levels with 257 car spaces, ground floor supermarket with loading dock and 100 residential units above. Associated excavation, dewatering and landscaping works were included.

 

Subject Site

 

The subject site is known as 84- 108 Anzac Parade, Kensington. It has a 96 metre frontage to Anzac Parade.

 

The approved development amalgamates nine (9) individual allotments, previously comprising a run of nondescript one (1) and two (2) storey commercial buildings, some with residential above. The applicant has commenced demolition of the buildings on the site.

 

The amalgamated site is generally rectangular and of the following dimensions:

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

39.345 metres

3336m2

Western, Anzac Parade boundary

96.7 metres

Southern, Goodwood Street boundary

39.345 metres

Eastern, rear boundary.

98.81 metres

 

3.    Community Consultation:

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development; and the proposed development was also advertised, in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. Nine (9) submissions were received from the following properties and one submission was received from a town planning consultant. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed below and in the subsequent sections of this report.

 

·      7 Elsmere Street, Kensington

·      15/9-19 Elsmere Street, Kensington

·      23 Elsmere Street, Kensington

·      3 Elsmere Street, Kensington

·      25 Elsmere Street, Kensington

·      29 Elsmere Street, Kensington

·      16/9-19 Elsmere Street, Kensington

·      65 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

·      5 French Street, Maroubra (property owner 29 Boronia Street, Kensington).

·      GPL Planning

 

Issues

Comments

•    Damage arising from excavation and construction

 

The proposed change to the method of excavation and dewatering is not supported due the significant impact on the canopy of neighbouring trees to east.

•    Excessive size and scale of building

 

The increase in the overall height of the building arises from the amended roof form which has a bulky appearance and awkward shape. The proposed roof will compromise the aesthetics of the building by not providing a coherent architectural language and resolution in its overall appearance. It is recommended by condition that the building be reduced in height to be more consistent with the approved height and the roof form be redesigned to better integrate with the architectural form of the building. In terms of the building depth, the additional floor area has been providing in a new mezzanine level within the approved void area in the basement and as such there is no increase in the physical volume of the building. Similarly, the increase in the number of dwellings is facilitated within the existing building depth and generally involves the conversion of the cross through apartments to a double loaded arrangement.

•    Car park exhaust vents impacting on amenity of properties to the east.

 

The proposed plant for the supermarket is in close proximity to the residential properties to the south east of the site and would exhaust at a height that would adversely impact on these residences. A condition is included in the recommendation that requires this plant to be deleted.

•    No need for additional retail tenancies

 

The new retail spaces are intended to compliment the supermarket component and provide additional uses that will contribute to the economic viability of the town centre.

•    Adequacy of rear landscaping

 

The proposed amendments to the landscaped buffer to the east would appear to allow more terracing and the widening of the planter box. As the basement is proposed to be extended to the east, it is unclear whether the landscaping in this location will effectively screen the podium wall of the supermarket. As the amended method of excavation is not supported a condition is included requiring the changes in this location to be deleted and for it to revert back to the originally approved design.

•    Traffic hazards due to increased number of vehicles

 

The proposed 113 units will generate an additional peak demand of 2.47 trips for the morning and 1.95 for the afternoon over and above what has already been approved. This is not significant and represents less than 2% of the expected vehicle trips generated by the approved development.

 

Traffic associated with the commercial component will not significantly change when compared to the original proposal.

•    No architectural merit to roof and no justification for breaching height limit

 

The roof design has been amended so that the rear (eastern) component is replaced with screening for the plant and equipment. The front (western) presents as a particularly bully structure and is inordinately high given that reasonable floor to ceiling heights can be achieved within a lower pitch. As such, a suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring the lowering height of the roof structure to be more consistent with the approved height.

•    Reduction in cross through apartments does not ensure quality design

 

The use of the “slots” to allow for a double loaded arrangement of the floor plate was not considered by Council in the original assessment of the application as being adequate to allow suitable levels of amenity both in terms of light and ventilation to the apartments. Notwithstanding, the JRPP have accepted this approach as an appropriate design solution. I note that the proposed apartment layouts maximise the opportunities for light and ventilation by siting habitable rooms mostly to the external walls. However, the extent of operable glazing to the external walls along the “slots” would appear to be reduced, thereby lessening the ability to provide good levels of light and ventilation. A condition is including in the recommendation requiring the amount of operable glazing to be increased consistent with the approved plans.

•    Increased bulk of podium wall to rear

 

The proposed amendments to the landscaped buffer to the east would appear to allow more terracing and the widening of the planter box. As the basement is proposed to be extended to the east, it is unclear whether the landscaping in this location will effectively screen the podium wall of the supermarket. As the amended method of excavation is not supported a condition is included requiring the changes in this location to be deleted and for it to revert back to the originally approved design.

•    Increase in number of apartments and size of the building results in greater solar access and noise impacts and loss of amenity.

 

The increase in the number of apartments does not directly translate into any greater impacts in terms of overshadowing as they are provided for within the approved floor plates of the development. A condition is recommended requiring the maximum height to be reduced to be more consistent with that originally approved. As such, any increase in overshadowing will be negligible. In terms of noise, the proposed increase in the population of the building development would be unlikely to generate significant additional noise impacts given that the changes are within the approved building envelope and there is adequate spatial separation between the approved building and the residential properties to the rear.

•    Change to excavation method and impact on neighbouring trees to the east

 

The proposed change to the method of excavation and dewatering is not supported due the significant impact on the canopy of neighbouring trees to east

•    Inadequate width of driveway entry

 

The condition requiring the width of the driveway to be increased is recommended to be retained.

•    Impacts on car parking capacity in the locality.

 

The development is over-compliant with its parking provision for the residential component and will be able to meet its car parking demand on site. Whilst there is a slight deficiency of 7 spaces for the commercial component it less than the deficiency that was originally approved and as such improves the ratio of car parking.

•    Bulky appearance of modified roof form should not be considered an architectural roof feature.

 

The roof design has been amended so that the rear (eastern) component is replaced with screening for the plant and equipment. The front (western) presents as a particularly bully structure and is inordinately high given that reasonable floor to ceiling heights can be achieved within a lower pitch. As such, a suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring the lowering of the roof structure to be more consistent with the approved height.

•    Consultation with Sydney Airports is required due to the increase in height

 

The height increase is within the height limit previously approved by the authority and does not require a further referral.

•    The retail units at ground floor compromise the approval of the JRPP in allowing the floor area of the supermarket to breach the envelope control.

 

The new retail spaces are intended to compliment the supermarket component and provide additional uses that will contribute to the economic viability of the town centre.

•    121 Units and not 113 units proposed

 

The objector would appear to have counted the residential floor space on the roof top level as separate apartments. These spaces are connected to the apartment below providing for a total number of 113 apartments.

•    Inconsistent with objectives of the Zone

 

The proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the zone subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

•    Increase in density and overdevelopment of the site

 

The proposed built form will be consistent with the approved envelope and the increased intensity of use arising from the additional apartments would not result in any significant increase in traffic generation.

•    Breach of envelope control

 

Notwithstanding that the approved development did not comply with the envelope control, the proposal subject to the reduction in height will remain consistent with the size and scale of the of the originally approved building

•    Non Compliance with DCP Sections B7 – Transport & D1 Kensington Town Centre.

The proposal subject to the imposition of conditions contained in the recommendation will remain consistent with the original approval and the objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

4.    Design Review Panel comments:

 

The Panel’s comments on the proposed modifications are provided below:

 

“The Panel was informed that this is now an amendment of a current Development Application for this major site, although it is for an adaptation of the design which has now been approved by the JRPP. This is the fourth time the Panel has seen a proposal for this major site, the most recently in October 2013.

 

The Panel notes that the applicant has again changed architects, and a different architect attended the meeting to the one who prepared the drawings submitted to the Panel. This in itself is a cause for concern, for it is widely seen in the architectural profession that a lack of continuity in the design of the project rarely produces good buildings.

 

Few of the Panel's previously stated concerns appear to have been substantively addressed in this application - the proposal remains monolithic and risks having an overbearing presence in the street, with many apartments of compromised amenity and environmental performance.

 

The Panel is familiar with the site and the broader Kensington Town Centre.

Previous comments are retained, with new comments added in ITALICS UNDERLINED IN CAPITALS.

 

1.     Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Anzac Parade in the Kensington Town Centre. Goodwood Street forms the southern boundary, while a 6 storey apartment building generally conforming to the Town Centre DCP has a party wall on the northern boundary. An assortment of houses and apartment buildings have their rear gardens adjoining the common boundary. The site is extremely well placed in relation to a range of public places and public transport, which is about to be further improved following the announcement of the tramline.

 

The proposal has an extensive frontage of almost 100 metres to Anzac Parade (#106 has now been successfully incorporated), replacing a run of nondescript and dilapidated buildings. The site is relatively flat, and like most of the centre, affected by flood freeboard levels. The site presents an unusual urban opportunity in Sydney of a long, level street façade (see discussion below).

 

The NEW DA CONTINUES TO IGNORE the Panel's concerns about the lack of information on context submitted. There remains minimal urban and site analyses to underpin the site planning and distribution of building volumes. There is REMAINS INADEQUATE INFORMATION on the residential properties to the rear, including their mature trees near the boundary, scale relationships, overshadowing (such as sun to windows of habitable rooms and gardens). Indeed neighbouring buildings CONTINUE TO BE not shown in either the elevations or sections submitted to the Panel.

 

Along the Anzac Parade frontage, THE ADJUSTED PROPOSAL SEEMS TO ACCORD MORE CLOSELY TO THE DCP HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS, WHICH HAVE BEEN ENFORCED BY COUNCIL IMPLEMENTATION OVER THE LAST DECADE IN A SUCCESSION OF DA APPROVALS.

 

The Panel reiterates that the architect should clearly annotate the extent of compliance / departure from the DCP envelopes, and calculate the volume of the DCP envelopes and the permissible FSR 80-85% of the envelope). The DCP envelope should clearly be shown on all plans, elevations and sections, and any departures or improvements shown and justified. Again no such information has been presented, and the excessive development proposed cannot be supported. STILL NOT SHOWN.

 

1.          The Scale of the Proposal

 

The Panel makes the following comments in relation to the form and scale of the revised proposal;

 

-        THE STREET FAÇADE NOW SEEMS TO ACCORD WITH THE DCP ENVELOPE AND HEIGHT. THE ONLY NEGATIVE IN THIS CHANGE IS THE LOSS OF THE COMMON ROOF TERRACE. THE PANEL CONSIDERS THAT THE ROOF PLANT AND EXHAUSTS WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVICE SUCH A MAJOR SUPERMARKET AND CAR PARK NEED TO BE FULLY AND ACCURATELY SHOWN. EXHAUST GRILLES, EMISSIONS AND NOISE NEED TO BE FULLY REPORTED ON SO THAT THEY CAN BE ASSESSED IN THIS DA. ALTHOUGH BRIEFLY DISCUSSED AT THE PANEL MEETING, THIS TYPE OF REQUIRED DETAIL APPEARS FUDGED IN THE DRAWINGS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL.

 

-        THE HEIGHT OF THE SOUTHERN END BETTER ACCORDS WITH THE DCP ENVELOPE, HOWEVER IT EXTENDS FURTHER TO THE EAST. THE RESULTANT WINTER SHADOW IMPACTS AFFECT MANY PROPERTIES, AS NOW SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.

 

-        The building mass is configured as a series of linked volumes, creating a rhythm along the street front. HOWEVER AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED the gaps have been reduced to such mean proportions (1 800mm) that the building would read as a continuous mass. The Panel had suggested at pre-DA stage that the architect could investigate making 3 distinct buildings, with gaps or slices through to courtyard gardens behind. Such an approach could retain the sense of rhythm to the street while allowing permeability for vistas, landscape, cross ventilation and light to apartments and summer breezes to filter through to improve both residential amenity and the pedestrian experience along Anzac Parade. NOT DONE

 

         NONE OF THE ABOVE HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED – THE PROPOSAL REMAINS OVERLY MONOLITHIC, PRESENTING AN UNRELIEVED MASS THAT REQUIRES MORE ARTICULATION AND REDUCES AMENITY FOR OTHERS.

 

-        The side boundary setback on Goodwood Street should be increased to comply with RFDC separation distance between buildings. This setback should comprise predominantly deep soil landscaping to provide a green outlook and screening between buildings. – NOT ADEQUATELY DONE. The nature of the "green zone" shown on the drawings is not evident - IT SEEMS TO BE TOO NARROW, DIFFICULT TO ACCESS FOR MAINTENANCE AND IMPOSSIBLE FOR RESIDENTS

 

-        THE RETAIL FRONTAGE TO ANZAC PARADE HAS BEEN IMPROVED SOMEWHAT, AS A STRIP OF THIN RETAIL HAS BEEN LAMINATED ACROSS THE SUPERMARKET FRONT. THIS GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE DIVERSIFIED RETAIL FRONTAGE, WHICH WOULD BE FURTHER IMPROVED IF THERE WAS A GREATER VARIETY OF ACCESS AND SIZE OF SHOP. THE ELEVATIONS SEEM TO SHOW THE GLAZING NOW COMING DOWN TO THE PAVEMENT LEVEL (AS NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS PANEL REPORT), BUT THE ACTUAL ARRANGEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ARE NOT ADEQUATELY SHOWN ON THE SECTIONS. THE RETAIL REMAINS RAISED DUE TO FLOODING, WHICH MEANS THAT THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE IS OF A WEST FACING BLANK WALL WITH THE SHOP LEVEL EFFECTIVELY AT AROUND  HEAD HEIGHT – AN INTERFACE OF NO CHARACTER THAT IS THE LENGTH OF A STREET BLOCK. IT REMAINS AN UNRELIEVED, WEST FACING WALL, CREATING A POOR FOOTPATH ENVIRONMENT.

 

-        IN LINE WITH THE PANEL’S SUGGESTIONS, the street awning has been lowered to normal height, and windows light the retail area above the awning. The awning appears to have circular skylights, which would provide a distinctive pattern of light, and are supported as long as their components are of an enduring quality. – NO INFORMATION PROVIDED. A FIXED PLASTIC DOME DETAIL WILL INCREASE HEAT LEVELS AT THE FOOTPATH IN SUMMER AFTERNOONS.

 

-        Neither the architectural or landscape drawings show any street trees along what is almost a full block frontage. The awning design should allow for street trees. This has been raised before - no response from the applicant. – NO INFORMATION PROVIDED

 

-        The 2 residential entries to Anzac Parade remain rather mean, with narrow deep set entries. The space in front of the lifts seems inadequate. In contrast, the entry to Goodwood Street is quite generous. –THIS IS STILL THE CASE

 

-        The Panel supports a driveway passing under the building, generally in the position as is proposed. However the double driveway proposed would have highly negative impacts on the street environment and pedestrians - any merging required should be accommodated within the property, and a single driveway only shown. Instead there is the opportunity for secondary retail to Goodwood Street. – NOT DONE, AND THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN EXACERBATED BY THE ADDITION OF A SUBSTATION AND FIRE ESCAPES ALONG THE GOODWOOD STREET FRONTAGE

 

-        The dock area is now internalised, and is reasonably compact. Nonetheless, its driveway should be combined with the vehicular driveway, and its presence should not be at the expense of deep soil planting along the rear boundary - it needs further revision. There are successful examples of supermarkets in dense areas which operate without such large loading docks. – NOT DONE

 

-        The Panel reiterates its concerns regarding building depth and the number of predominantly single orientation units, particularly those facing west to a main road. The Panel encourages a different form at the rear, allowing a thinner sectioned building than the maximum 22 metre deep volume in the DCP, which plainly is inconsistent with SEPP 65 requirements. As long as a 9 metre rear set back was provided, the architect could provide projecting elements and deep slots along the rear facade, allowing sun and air into all bedrooms. This could break up the long volume into articulated projections, and improve the environmental performance of what are otherwise effectively single orientation units (see further comments below). – NOT ATTEMPTED. THIS REMAINS A MAJOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE RFDC’S 18 M MAXIMUM BUILDING DEPTH – THE OVERALL BUILDING DEPTH IS MORE THAN 24 METRES. THIS RESULTS IN AN UNACCEPTABLY DEEP BUILDING, WITH THE MIDDLE THIRD OF THE PLAN ON ALL LEVELS ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON ARTIFICIAL LIGHT AND MECHANICAL VENTILATION.

 

         None of the above has been done – the overall building depth at the lower levels seems to BE APPROXIMATELY 20-22m glass to glass as the typical depth. In the Panel’s assessment the proposed configuration fails to meet key RFDC targets in terms of building depth, single orientation apartments, and probably 3 hours of sun.

 

-        The Panel supports the light and air in all the common lobbies. Retained, acceptable. THOUGH THE LINKING OF THE CORES, SEEMINGLY IN ORDER TO SAVE ON LIFTS, RESULTS IN EXCEEDINGLY LONG COMMON CORRIDORS - ALBEIT RELIVED BY A SMALL AMOUNT OF ACCESS TO LIGHT IN THE MIDDLE - NATURAL VENTILATION SHOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE.

 

-        The basement car parking now fully occupies 3 levels, which run the entire length and breadth of the site, including SUBSTANTIALLY under the rear landscape zone – WHICH SHOULD BE DEEP SOIL LANDSCAPE. THE DEEP SOIL AREA SEEMS RATHER TOKEN, AND RISKS BEING UNLOVED AND INACCESSIBLE. The height of the podium to the neighbours to the rear would clearly be a very poor outcome - overshadowing, over-looking and overbearing the 9 properties to the east. The proposal should be setback from the eastern boundary by the width of the proposed storage areas in the basement to allow for ground level deep soil planting of trees and under-storey planting. This space should be accessible and useful. This was previously recommended. – THIS REMAINS A VERY POOR ARRANGEMENT

 

-        Gardens and courtyards could separate and complement the building volumes. This has now been done – the landscape area shown on the podium is now substantial (IT SEEMS TO HAVE SHRUNK, AND NOW IS NOT LARGE RELATIVE TO THE RESIDENT POPULATION) and is complemented by the roof terraces (NOW DELETED).

 

-        THE NEW, ANGLED ROOF ELEMENTS ARE SOMEWHAT OVERSTATED AND NOT INTEGRATED WITH CORNER ELEMENT.

 

FEW of the Panel’s suggestions have been taken up – instead the design has regressed IN MANY RESPECTS. The design does not meet SEPP 65 or RFDC standards, therefore major revisions are required.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

See comments above

 

4.     The Proposed Density

 

The redevelopment of such a well-located site is welcome. The Panel notes that the proposal’s floor space needs to be equated to 80 – 85% of the DCP’s envelopes – this needs to be derived by a to-scale graphic comparison between the proposed building against the generic envelope, in both plan and section. – NOT SHOWN TO THE PANEL

 

Despite being stated very clearly in the pre-DA and post-DA reports, this has still not been done – the volume proposed has further increased and appears to be considerably more than the permitted percentage. This contributes directly to the deficiencies noted above.

 

5.     Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

The Panel previously considered that, although the architect claims a reasonable percentage of units are cross-ventilated, too many of the units are predominantly single orientation. By the Panel’s calculation 16 of the 21 units on the podium level, 12 of the 21 units on the typical floors, 7 of the 16 units on level 9, and 0 out of 4 units on levels 13 and 14 are single orientation (the Panel is not convinced that the few secondary windows on the deep slots would provide enough effective cross ventilation) Multiple design adjustments are required to substantially improve the proposal’s substandard performance.

 

IF ANYTHING THESE PERCENTAGES ARE NOW LIKELY TO BE WORSE, AS THE PREVIOUS THROUGH APARTMENTS AT THE ENDS HAVE NOW BE TURNED INTO A PAIR OF NARROW, SINGLE ORIENTATION UNITS WITH AN INTERNAL BEDROOM

 

The Panel believes that a combination of BCA advice, better use of light and air from the common galleries, and fire-rated plenums and the like should be used to guarantee as high as possible a percentage of cross-ventilated units. Kensington benefits from the sea breeze, especially to the rear, however the frontage is exposed to noise from Anzac Parade, so cross ventilation should obviate the need for air-conditioning. In this regard the reworking of mass, footprint and section could significantly improve the environmental performance. Not done. – STILL NOT DONE

 

Ceiling fans should be provided for each bedroom and clearly shown on the plans.  This is particularly relevant where the bedroom is deep within the plan and the cross ventilation is compromised. The Panel advises against having ‘snorkel’ or internalised bedrooms that are compromised in terms of natural ventilation. Not done. – NOT EVIDENT

 

Window operation should be clearly marked on all windows on the elevations – including any clerestory windows. All units should have balcony doors and windows that can be secure, open-able and weather-sheltered to allow cross ventilation at night or when the apartment is not occupied. Not done. – STILL NOT DONE

 

The facade to Anzac Parade will need particular attention to reduce road noise and western sun problems whilst simultaneously allowing good ventilation. Attempted, but solutions as yet not satisfactory. The window selection is not fully described or worked out, and the screened balconies lack sufficient detail. – STILL NOT DONE

 

The opportunity for added light, ventilation and winter sun through the roof by utilising clerestory windows should be considered.  Light and air can be achieved in this way without the problems of road noise and privacy issues. Not done. – THIS IS UNCLEAR IN THE SECTIONS, AS THE EXTENT OF VENTING AND ITS RESTRICTION ON OPENINGS IS NOT AT ALL DESCRIBED

 

LARGE UNPROTECTED PANELS OF WEST FACING GLASS AS SHOWN ON LEVEL 9 ARE UNACCEPTABLE

 

Given the above, the building will be heavily reliant on artificial cooling and lighting therefore environmental performance is considered substandard and does not meet SEPP 65 and RFDC standards. THE PROPOSAL CONTINUES TO FAIL SEPP 65 AND RFDC REQUIREMENTS

 

6   The Proposed Landscape

 

The landscape design has been revised AGAIN. The PREVIOUSLY generous communal terraces at the rear at podium level, and on terraces across all roofs HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED IN AREA AND THEREFORE UTILITY AND AMENITY. The podium and roof top terraces are all accessible off the 3 cores, giving equitable access.

The Panel AGAIN HIGHLIGHTS THE following landscape issues require further resolution;

 

-        INADEQUATE sections are shown through either the podium. The landscape plans are full of references to other projects and images, but do not show HOW this is to be achieved on this challenging site. Imagery is not enough in a DA for such a proposal - how for instance does the Lloyd Rees Fountain in Martin Place have any relevance to what is proposed here?

 

-        The Panel is concerned that the maintenance required for the proposed landscape treatment

 

-        The podium roof terraces need to be coordinated with the many service and exhaust risers required, which all have clearances to communal areas. This has the potential to severely compromise the landscape, and needs to be resolved

 

-        No soil depths are indicated on either the architectural or landscape drawings - this does not meet either SEPP 65 or Council's submission requirements

 

-        No planting schedule has been provided, including species, indicative numbers, sizes etc.

 

-        Are external clothes lines provided?

 

-        No information has been provided that shows how privacy to the rear would be achieved from the common terrace. This is some 7 metres above the level of the neighbours - how are issues such as privacy and maintenance addressed?

 

-        The architectural drawings infer a planted wall to the eastern boundary - this does not seem to be referenced in the landscape drawings and lacks credibility. How would such as space be accessed, irrigated or maintained?

 

-        The landscape amenity of the properties to the rear remains severely compromised, and their existing trees would be imperilled by the deep excavation and height of the party wall along the entire boundary.

 

-        No street trees are proposed to either frontage, nor are any details of public domain improvements indicated

 

Despite its potential, at this stage the concept design still lacks adequate detail, so does not as yet meet SEPP 65 and RFDC standards. THE EXTENT OF LANDSCAPE HAS SEVERELY DECREASED

 

7.     The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel reiterates multiple concerns regarding residential amenity, including the STILL INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO THE following issues;

 

-        the excessive glass to glass building depth of 23.7m for the lower 4 residential levels far exceeds the 18 metres maximum set out in the RFDC. Recent research is indicating that about 15 metres glass to glass is the maximum for effective cross ventilation in units, so the few genuine dual aspect units at the lower levels still would not have a good internal environment

 

-        there are too many single orientation units throughout. Single orientation west apartments should be minimized, and more use made of the slots provided – As noted above, this aspect remains unacceptable. The slots themselves are narrow dead ends, and may not assist with cross ventilation across the corner. At 1.8m in width, they should not be the only outlook for a large number of bedrooms.

 

-        there are too many embedded and ‘snorkel’ type bedrooms, and the occasional internal room. The Panel strongly suggests major indents and projections long the rear face of the building, which would increase the length of the perimeter, and much improve possibilities for cross ventilation, daylight and outlook to the rear gardens. While the number of ‘snorkel’ type bedrooms have been decreased (there are however 2 totally internal bedrooms/ studies per floor, and others deep into the slots), no other improvements have been made - remains unsatisfactory

 

-        5 small vertical holes (approx. 2 x 2m, 6 storeys high) have been added to penetrate the floor plates - these open off 5 otherwise internal bedrooms per floor. These would not be effective 'lightwells' (rather 'darkwells'), and would give rise to unacceptable odour and acoustic problems while providing no daylight (they would likely get unwanted night light spill effects). The northern hole is in any case roofed over

 

-        virtually all bathrooms, laundries and ensuites are internalised, and would rely on artificial light and mechanical ventilation all day and night. Many bathrooms have an external wall to the slots - which would be ideal for openable windows - why hasn't this been carried out, as suggested?

 

-        almost no kitchen complies with the RFDC requirement to be within 8 metres of the openings to the exterior

 

-        the single orientation units on the Podium Level could benefit from parts with a greater ceiling height, or other sectional ideas, such as skylights / shafts etc – this could be skilfully done, and demonstrated in detailed sections. Not done

 

-        an improved variety of apartment types is now proposed, including one, two, three and four bedroom units. Most units appear to have well-planned, functional layouts - except for the lack of effective natural ventilation and daylight.

 

-        there are two storey units on the upper levels – the amenity could be improved by including cross-over units. This improvement has now been done.

 

-        furniture layouts and room dimensions should be shown throughout. Furniture layouts have generally been added, but not room dimensions. The few overall dimensions are too small to be read on the plans supplied to the Panel - DETAILED PLANS OF EACH UNIT TYPE HAVE NOW BEEN SUBMITTED

 

-        more use could be made of the roof terraces off the upper apartments - this has been done

 

-        in detailed design, providing each unit with a range of openings and weather shelter is important. Not done

 

-        The perforated screens to the west elevation seem to have more concern with aesthetics than acoustic or thermal performance. THE PANEL HAS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT THE NEED FOR ACOUSTIC AND SUNSHADE DEVICES ON THE WEST.  PERFORATED SOFFIT MATERIAL TO THE BALCONIES AND OTHER SUCH STRATEGIES SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

 

-        The internal planning in the southern tower seems to have excessive circulation space and poor room relationships to terraces which are too consistently narrow.

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

The proposal provides good surveillance of the street and perimeter garden areas. The entry paths are clearly arranged, with good address and way-finding.

 

As noted above, the site and mix of uses is complex and BCA advice should be sought and incorporated into the design.

 

Unchanged.

 

The double driveway to Goodwood Street would create conflicts with pedestrians, and needs to be reconsidered as noted above. – MADE WORSE

 

9.     Social issues

 

The intensification of such well-placed sites is socially beneficial. The provision of a range of units, including garden units at podium level, larger and smaller units, is supported. The site planning arrangement allows the future residents of what would be a large development to have a large rear landscaped garden. The Panel also supports each part being separately expressed and accessed.

 

The Panel is concerned about the current form of the supermarket proposed, and the additional parking. A smaller supermarket, with far less or no parking, would have a much better presence in Kensington's shopping strip. The large car park proposed (69 public spaces) would create additional traffic congestion in Kensington, in particular in Goodwood Street and Doncaster Avenue. This is of no benefit to the centre, which should have a more pedestrian focus, particularly given the introduction of the light rail. The Panel does not concur that such a large supermarket should trigger any bonuses for either height or floor area.

 

THE DIVISION / SECURITY BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE CAR PARKING AREAS IS NOT EVIDENT ON THE PLANS

 

The proposed arrangement of the retail to the street would result in a monotonous streetscape, with no diversity of retail frontage. This could rob Anzac Parade of vibrancy – opposite to the DCP intent. Indeed the existing nondescript mixed retail could well be considered to be superior to the proposal.

 

10.   The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The proposal has the potential to be a fine addition to Kensington, and to become a model for future apartment buildings along Anzac Parade. The parts are potentially well scaled and articulated, with the intention of creating a variety of elements and scales to make what is a large project as a series of well-related parts.

 

Thought needs to be given to the materials palette. The Panel is concerned that the larger buildings in the Kensington should be designed and built with robust materials and an enduring character. Large rendered and painted surfaces, for example, are likely to present on-going maintenance problems for an Owners Corporation. 1:50 part elevations / sections and showing colours and materials should be part of the DA drawing set to remove ambiguity. 

 

In the revised proposal, no 1:50 sections and part elevations have been provided. The detailed design and material palette are notional and have not been sufficiently developed to be convincing.  The southern building now has an imposing aesthetic that does not show correlation to the internal spaces, views or sunshading requirements. 

 

THE ARCHITECTURAL RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN APPEARS TO HAVE REGRESSED IN THE LATEST SUBMISSION. THE INFORMATION PRESENTED APPEARS UNCOORDINATED, LACKS DETAIL AND CONSTRUCTIONAL REALITY. FOR EXAMPLE;

 

-        THE CANTILEVERED AWNING ROOF ABOVE LEVEL 10, WHICH APPEARS TO BE SUCH A DISTINCTIVE FEATURE OF THE SCHEME, LACKS ANY STRUCTURE.

-        THE PRIVACY SCREENS AT LEVELS 8 AND 9 COULD BE VERY PROMINENT IN 3 D, ARE NOT CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED

-        THERE REMAINS SCANT INFORMATION ON THE CIRCULAR ELEMENTS, THEIR MATERIAL, SUPPORT, DETAIL

-        THE PICTURES, MONTAGES AND LARGER SCALE ELEVATION APPEAR UNRELATED, AND DO NOT GIVE A RELIABLE OR ENFORCEABLE AESTHETIC CHARACTER TO THE SCHEME

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

The site is an exceptionally important one, as it has an usually long frontage to the area's most important boulevard Anzac Parade, is central to Kensington’s evolving town centre, and has the potential to reinforce the spatial definition and life of the street. It could also become home for hundreds of people for many decades to come.

 

 

The site's potential has not been realized in either the earlier DA submission nor this revised submission. The Panel reiterates that the application is deficient in many fundamental aspects, and has shown no signs at all of design development. For example the drawings do not show any relationship to the DCP envelopes, lack boundary dimensions, do not show surrounding development adequately, have few overall or grid dimensions, do not show setbacks from boundaries, and have no room dimensions.

 

The Panel remains very disappointed that the submitted proposal has not engaged with either the pre- or post-DA advice. The design falls well short of SEPP 65 principles and RFDC standards in a number of key areas, and needs to be substantially improved before being resubmitted to the Panel at a future meeting. As submitted, it is the Panel's view that the DA should be rejected.

 

THE PANEL REITERATES ITS PREVIOUS ADVICE THAT THIS SCHEME SIGNIFICANTLY FAILS SEPP 65 AND THE RFDC RULES AND SHOULD BE REJECTED.”

 

Planner’s Comments:

 

The Panel’s comments largely concern themselves with aspects of the original proposal that have now been approved. In respect to the proposed modifications, the applicant has reconfigured some of the apartments to increase opportunities for light and cross ventilation and a suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring the extent of operable glazing in the “slots” to be increased to that originally approved. Also, the presentation of the retail façade has been amended to provide a lighter aesthetic through the use of colour backed glass, the domes have been deleted in the awning to the street, the roof areas have been reconfigured and screens introduced to levels 9 and 10 to assist with protection from the afternoon summer sun. Details have also been provided of the openings to the lobby areas demonstrating that there will be adequate liht and ventilation to these spaces. The issues in relation to the plant and equipment and landscaping to the east are addressed in the environmental assessment section of this report.

 

 

5.    Technical Officers Comments:

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 

5.1      Development Engineer Referral Comments:

 

Council’s Development Engineer has provided the following comments on the proposed modification:

 

A Section 96(2) application has been received which seeks to modify the consent by seeking to  increase parking to 283 vehicle spaces, changes to retaining walls within the eastern boundary setback, reconfigure ground floor retail to allow for4 tenancies, increase number of approved units from 100 to 113, reconfigure apartment layouts and increase roof height.

 

Original consent: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 6/part 7 storey mixed use development, comprising 3 basement levels with 257 car spaces, ground floor supermarket with loading dock and 100 residential units above.  Includes associated excavation, dewatering and landscaping works

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

 

  Landscape Plans by Site Image, dwg SK01-02, issue B, dated 07/07/14;

  Root Mapping Report by Urban Forestry dated 24 February 2014;

  SEE by City Plan Services dated July 2014 and stamped by Council 1 August 2014;

  Amended Architectural Plans by Luxcon, sheets DA.101 – 202, dated 14/3/14 and stamped by Council 30TH October 2014;

  Supplementary Traffic Report by Parking & Traffic Consultants.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

 

The decreased basement setback and change in construction methodology is not supported by Council’s Landscape Development Officer due to the unacceptable impacts on the neighbouring trees adjacent to the eastern boundary. As the increased parking provision and parking layout is dependent on this amended design the proposed Section 96 application cannot be supported.

 

Amendments to conditions relating to the parking allocation and access driveway are also not supported due to the resulting non-compliances with the required commercial; parking provision and the requirements of AS 2890.1:2004.

 

Further details on the proposed amendments to engineering and landscape aspects of the proposal are given below.

 

FLOODING COMMENTS

 

Flood mitigation measures appear to be satisfactory. A note in condition 48 requiring the lifts at the northwest corner of the development to be suitably protected is no longer necessary as they have now been raised above the flood planning level with the Section 96 plans and may be deleted.

 

TRAFFIC GENERATION COMMENTS

 

The RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments specifies a peak traffic generation rate of 0.24 vehicles per dwelling. The technical direction (TDT 2013/04a) of August 2013 provides an updated figure of 0.19 vehicle trips per dwelling for the AM peak and 0.15 trips per dwelling for the afternoon peak.

 

The proposed 113 units proposed will therefore generate an additional peak demand of 2.47 trips for the morning and 1.95 for the afternoon over and above what has already been considered and approved for the development. This is not significant and represents less than 2% of the expected vehicle trips generated by the approved development.

 

Traffic associated with the commercial component will not significantly change when compared to the original proposal. No objections are raised on this aspect

 

PARKING PROVISION COMMENTS

 

The parking provision is generally considered to be satisfactory subject to the conditions of consent. There is a small 2 space deficiency in the amount of motorbike parking provided however this is not of significant concern to Development Engineering given the over-compliance with the total amount of parking required.

 

It is also noted the parking provision for the commercial parking can now be provided all on one level (basement level 1). Further breakdown of the competing parking demands is given below.

 

Vehicle Parking Provision-Residential

The residential component now contains 113 units comprising of 43 x 1 bedroom units + 49 x 2 bedroom 21 x 3 bedroom units.

 

Adopting the rates specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 this will generate the following parking demand

 

Parking Required   = (43 x 1) + (49 x 1.2) + (21 x 1.5) + 113/4 (visitor)

                          = 43 + 58.8 + 31.5 + 28.25(visitor)

                          = 161.55

                          = say 162 spaces including 28 visitor spaces

 

Parking Provided = 211 spaces (including 10 small car spaces) on basement levels 2 & 3

 

The residential parking provision is satisfactory. The provision of small carspaces is generally not supported, however as the development is over-compliant with its parking provision however, no objections are raised in this instance. It will be required however that a maximum of 1 small carspace only shall be dedicated to any single unit.

 

Service and Delivery Parking

 

Service and Delivery Parking is to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 50 units up to 200 dwellings, plus 1 space per 100 dwellings thereafter. For subject development two carspaces will be required. This has already been conditioned the development consent but it is noted two loading baya on the ground flor are now dedicated for residential use. Condition 44e may therefore be deleted/amended

 

Motorbike Parking – Residential

Motorbike Parking is to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking requirement.

 

Motorbike Parking Required = 0.05 x 162 = 8 spaces

 

Motorbike Parking Provided = 7 spaces (shortfall of 1 space)

 

Bicycle Parking- Residential

For Flats/multi dwelling bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 2 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

Bicycle Parking Required     = 113/2 + 113/10(visitor)

                                      = 56.5 + 11.3

                                      = 68 spaces (including 11 visitor spaces)

Bicycle Parking provided     = 62 (basement 2) +5 (basement 3) + 9 shared (basement 1)

 

The residential bicycle parking provision is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Vehicle Parking Provision-Commercial

 

It is noted the traffic report has adopted the general DCP commercial rate of 1 space per 40m2 for the supermarket arriving at a figure of 51 spaces for the total ground floor area of 2050m2. This is not supported as Development Engineering has consistently requested (since assessment of the original application) that the RMS rate of 42 spaces per 1000m2 is applicable to the supermarket component. Adopting this rate the 1610m2 supermarket would generate a parking demand of 68 spaces.

 

The shop tenancies can be assessed as per the general DCP commercial rate of 1 space per 40m2 specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP. For a combined floor area of 440m2 (126+190+124) the shop tenancies will generate a parking demand of 11 spaces.

 

Total Commercial Parking Required = 11 (Shops) + 68 (supermarket) = 79 spaces

 

The plans indicate that 72 car spaces will be provided on basement level 1 which if totally dedicated to commercial parking will resulting in a parking deficiency of 7 spaces for the commercial component. It is noted however this is also proposed to be shared with residential visitor parking which is not supported (as with the original application). 

 

With the original application, Development Engineering accepted a parking deficiency of 10 spaces (94 required while 84 required in consent) in recognition of the site's context in Kensington Town centre and proximity to public transport (including future light rail). The difference in the total number of commercial carspaces required from the original application is attributed to the reduced size of the proposed supermarket and application of a different parking rate to the newly proposed shop tenancies.

 

As the parking deficiency for the commercial component has now decreased by 3 spaces from what was conditioned in the original proposal, the parking provision of 72 spaces for the commercial component is therefore considered to be satisfactory provided the spaces are not shared with residential visitors. There is an ample supply of resident parking in the lower basement levels to meet the demand for residential visitors as well as the residents themselves (162 required, 211 provided) without the need to impact on commercial parking. The deletion of condition 44b is therefore not supported.

 

Motorbike Parking-Commercial

Motorbike Parking is to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking requirement.

 

Motorbike Parking Required = 0.05 x 72 = 3.6 = say 4 spaces

 

Motorbike Parking Provided = 3 spaces (shortfall of 1 space)

 

Bicycle Parking-Commercial

Commercial bicycle parking is to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 10 parking spaces

Bicycle Parking Required = 72/10 = 7 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking Provided = 9 spaces (partially shared)

 

The Bicycle parking provision is satisfactory.

 

PARKING LAYOUT COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

Access Driveway

 

In the original assessment, the access driveway width was considered inadequate when assessed against the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.1:2004 and it has always been Development Engineering’s position that a 7.5 wide driveway consisting of 2 x 3.5m wide trafficable lanes plus a 0.5m wide central island would be the minimum acceptable width. This was conditioned in the development consent (Condition 42 dot point 2) and is consistent with a similar development at Bunnerong Road Matraville.

 

As the number of carspaces is increasing by nearly 30 spaces with this S96 application, this issue has been exacerbated further.  The deletion of condition 42 dot point 2 is therefore not supported by Development Engineering and shall be retained.

 

Carspace size

 

The provision of small carspaces in developments is generally not supported however as the development is over-compliant with its parking provision, no objections are raised in this instance It will be required however that a maximum of 1 small carspace only shall be dedicated to any single unit.

 

Apart from the issues raised above the amended carpark layout appears to generally comply with the requirements of AS 2890.1:2004.

 

As Council is not supporting the changes to the basement and excavation method, the parking demand associated with the increase  in apartments and introduction of shops to the ground level will still be able to accommodated within the originally approved basement. The original development was approved with a total of 257 spaces over 3 basement levels. This is still sufficient to meet the demands for the increased number of 113 residential  apartments (162 spaces) plus the demand for the amended commercial level (79 spaces) total = 241 spaces (surplus of 16 spaces)

 

There was an issue with how the spaces were to be allocated and condition  44 in the original consent was an attempt to correct this. It will  need to be amended slightly to reflect the amended commercial layout. I indicated in my S96 report that  I would accept a parking provision of 73 spaces for the commercial component  (supermarket + tenancies).

 

The amount of bicycle parking for the residential parking component will also need to increase slightly from 65 to 68 spaces

 

Condition 44 shall therefore need to be amended as follows

 

Parking conditions

 

44.     Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the following amendments/requirements for parking allocation;

 

a)     A minimum of 72 spaces shall be allocated to the retail component (future supermarket & shops)

b)     Visitor parking for the residents must not be shared with the retail component.

c)      A minimum of 1 space shall be allocated to  each unit

d)     Three or 4 bedroom units shall be given preference if two spaces are intended to be dedicated to a unit.

e)     A minimum of two spaces in the residential parking level shall be dedicated for service and delivery parking

f)      Motorbike parking is to be provided at 5% of the total parking provision.

g)     Adequate provision is to be made for a minimum of 68 bicycle spaces (including 11 visitor spaces) on the residential parking levels.

h)     Adequate provision is to be made for a minimum of 9 bicycle spaces on the main retail parking level.

 

CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE COMMENTS

 

The applicant is proposing a revised construction methodology for the excavation and construction of the basement levels. The current approved methodology was proposed by Aurecon in the original application as a way of addressing Council’s concerns on the impact on neighbouring trees and the management of groundwater. The development was approved with strict adherence to this construction method specified in the conditions of consent (conditions 28, 32 & 52).

 

Council’s Development Engineer and Landscape Development Officer previously indicated it did not support any variation to conditions that deleted the reference to the construction sequence plans by Aurecon without further supporting documentation. Until recently Council had only received a one page document by Urban Forestry in support of the deletion of this construction sequence which was not considered acceptable. Additional information was requested and has now been submitted in the form of a root mapping report and details of an alternative construction method (Diaphragm Walls).

 

A letter has also been received from Douglas Partners Engineers dated 25th June 2014 in support of the revised construction methodology. It states that the originally proposed method was “very complex and likely to be difficult to construct in the water charged sands that underlie the site”. The alternative method comprising of diaphragm type walls is now proposed to be installed around the full basement perimeter. The letter from Douglas Partners also states “that from a geotechnical perspective this revised methodology is considered to be a more practical method than that proposed by Aurecon. A diagram of the proposed method is provided below which has been obtained from an internet search and may be helpful in understanding the method proposed.

 

Obtained from http://www.bacsol.co.uk/techniques/retaining-walls/diaphragm-walls/

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed revised methodology is a more conventional & practical method than that originally proposed by Aurecon but concerns were raised on the potential for additional impacts on the root zones of significant trees situated on adjoining properties to the east. The submitted tree mapping report appears to have addressed the Landscape Development officers concerns in this regard.

 

It should also be noted that any drilling rig/crane will now be located closer to the eastern boundary than originally envisaged, significantly increasing the amount of pruning required on the neighbouring tree canopies. These impacts have been assessed by Council’s Landscape Development Office (see tree and landscape comments) and found not to be acceptable.  In light of the Landscape Development officers concerns the revised construction methodology is not supported by Development Engineering.

 

The requested amendments to Conditions 28, 32, 52 are therefore not supported.

 

TREE & LANDSCAPE COMMENTS

 

In order to minimise damage both above and below ground to the row of established trees that are growing on adjoining private properties to the east, in Elsmere Road, development consent was granted on the basis that the eastern wall of the basement would be constructed using a specific and complex technique, the ‘Aurecon shoring scheme’, that would result in a setback of 1200mm being provided from the eastern boundary at the southern end of the site, expanding out to 2700mm at the northern end of the site.

 

However, this S96A application not only seeks to depart from the Aurecon shoring scheme altogether, reverting to a more traditional diaphragm type wall, it also proposes that the basement wall setbacks from the boundary be drastically reduced to only 200mm at the southern end and 1600mm at the northern end.

A Root Mapping Report by Urban Forestry dated 24 February 2014 was received by Council via e-mail in early November 2014. This Report confirms (through the inclusion of photos) that the majority of roots from these trees are contained wholly within those properties in Elsmere Road, as once they reach the existing footing/wall, they are then deflected to the north and south.

 

While it is possible that some roots may still be encountered within the development site, based on the findings of the Root Mapping Report, the amount would be minimal, and in any case, would not comprise roots which are critical to the future health and stability of the trees.

 

On this basis, it is anticipated that performing the works at the approved setbacks would not have a major impact on any of their root systems, and while it may even be possible to relocate the basement wall closer to the boundary and trees, as is shown with this S96A application, without damaging roots, it is noted that this would result in other indirect impacts; being; an unacceptable and unsustainable amount of pruning, with root damage also likely to occur during installation of the ground anchors at such a close setback.

 

A joint site meeting was held with the consulting Arborist and developer on 12 November 2014 to confirm the extent of pruning that would be required. While a string line was provided along the line of the approved Aurecon basement wall, as discussed above, this S96 actually proposes that the eastern basement be constructed much closer to the eastern boundary and trees than the string line.

 

The pruning assessment confirmed unanimously that both a reduction in the setback from the boundary and a change in construction technique would have a direct and significant impact on all of the neighbouring trees.

 

While the selective pruning of overhanging branches was always going to be necessary, even as part of the approved Aurecon scheme, so as to provide a clearance for the piling rig operation, as well as to avoid damage to the trees, relocating the eastern basement wall as is shown on this S96 application would result in a catastrophic loss of foliage and branching structure to all of these trees, and is not an amount they could sustain.

 

Council is responsible for ensuring these neighbouring trees are reasonably protected from the adverse impacts of construction, which will not be physically possible if the eastern boundary wall is constructed as is shown on this current S96A application.

 

On this basis, the assessing officer is advised that Council’s Landscape Development Officer cannot support this S96A application as shown.

 

If further applications are submitted for this site, Council requires that the applicant also address the following matters:

 

·      The consulting Arborists recommendation to retain the existing footing/wall on the eastern boundary so as to maintain tree stability is supported. However, clarification is sought on how a new 1.8m high boundary wall and footing can be constructed on top of these existing structures that are remaining;

·      Confirm whether a 1.8m masonry wall will be built on the eastern boundary;

·      Confirm whether this wall be backfilled with soil and planted-out; or; if planting will be at ground level. The Architectural Plans and Landscape Plans are not consistent.

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT COMMENTS

The amount of waste generated for the amended development has been determined from waste generation rates specified in Appendix A of the Council Document “Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Developments’.

 

Residential Component

The waste guidelines specify the amount of waste generated for Residential Units as;

 

Normal Garbage    = 120L per week

Recyclables          = 60 per week

 

The 113 units will therefore generate the following amount of waste

 

Normal Garbage

Waste Generated       = 113 x 120L/week = 13,560L per week

       

The Waste management plan stats that this will be stored in 660L bins

 

Number of 660L bins required      = 13560/660 = 20.5 = say 21 bins

Recyclables

As recycled bin are collected fortnightly waste generated has been calculated on this frequency

 

Waste Generated       = 113 x 60L/week x 2 = 13,560L per fortnight

       

The Waste management plan states that this will be stored in 240L bins

 

Number of 240L bins required      = 13560/240 = 56.5 = say 57 bins

 

These will be stored on enlarged storage areas on Level B1 and on levels 5-9. The plans satisfactorily demonstrate that enough area is available to store the required number of waste bins. The doorways to the 3 garbage rooms should however de designed to accommodate the width of 660L bins of dimensions 1.24m x 0.78m.

 

Waste Collection

The collection of recycling bins at the proposed loading bay will be by side loading Council collection vehicles which are solely operated. This aspect was not addressed in the original application and condition 58 was placed in the development consent relating to this aspect.

 

The Section 96 application now appears to indicate a temporary holding facility within the residential loading dock while the loading dock itself has been enlarged to allow for both a residential and commercial loading bay. This is an improvement on the original proposal and no objections are raised.

 

In order to allow for the increase in apartments and shops within the originally approved basement, the waste storage rooms may need to be increased in size to accommodate the additional waste generation. This will be in the order of  an additional 12-14 bins (6-7 recycling + 6-7 recycling).

 

I therefore recommend the following additional condition in Requirements prior to CC.

 

The residential  garbage rooms shall be sized to contain a total of 21 x 660 Litre (or 57  x 240 litre) bins for garbage and 57 x 240 litre bins for  recycling with adequate provisions for access to all bins.  Details showing compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

5.2      External Referrals:

 

The application was assessed as integrated development, due to the excavation and basement levels protruding into the water table. The NSW Office of Water has commented on the proposed modifications and advised that;.

 

“The NSW Office of Water has previously provided general terms of approval for the original development application. It is noted that the construction of a three (3) level basement car park remains within the modification application, with alterations to the layout to allow for increased vehicular capacity included, and therefore it is considered that general terms of approval in relation to an authorisation for the take of groundwater remain warranted.”

 

6.    Section 96 Assessment

 

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

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

 

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

 

(c)   it has notified the application in accordance with:

 

(i)    the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)    a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

 

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

 

The proposed modifications under are generally contained within the approved building envelope. Whilst there are increases in the quantum of dwellings and car parking, in the context of the overall scope of the development, the qualitative and qualitative changes do not involve a significant change to the built form or intensity of the use of the approved development. Therefore, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted

 

7.    Assessment of Key issues:

 

Height

The proposed modification would result in the building being increased in height to a maximum of 27.4m well beyond the maximum height limit of 25m pursuant to RLEP 2012. The increase in the overall height of the building is 2.55m higher than that approved and arises from the amended roof form which has a bulky appearance and awkward shape. The figures below show the new roof form in comparison to that originally approved

 

Figure 1:Original Approval

 

Figure 2: S96 Proposal

 

Council’s Randwick DCP 2013 requires that lift over-runs and service plant are contained within roof structures or roof lines. It also tries to minimise the bulk and mass of roofs and their potential for overshadowing. The proposed roof will compromise the aesthetics of the building by not providing a coherent architectural language and resolution in its overall appearance. The overstated pitched roof form to Anzac Pde and combination of open screening to plant areas to the rear appears piecemeal and does not provide for a cohesive expression of the top of the building or is effective in reducing the visual intrusiveness of the service elements. The screening and location of the plant above apartment 914 would also appear to be excessive and poorly resolved.

 

The RL’s of the building have been adjusted from level 6 to 10 to achieve an overall increase of 250mm at the level 10 finished floor level. Hence, allowing for a 2.75m floor to ceiling height, the RL for the ceiling height at level 10 would be RL 52.15 which is the approved maximum height of the pitched roof area along the northern section of the building. It should be noted that the 25m height limit has been designed so that buildings within the Kensington Town Centre can comfortably fit within the height standard and has taken into consideration flood levels and the provision of a habitable roof space. The applicant has indicated that the roof could be reduced to RL 52.82 which allows for a minimal increase in the height of 670mm above that approved and a maximum of 520mm above the 25m height limit. Such an increase in height would be negligible in terms of any additional amenity impacts on adjoining and neighbouring properties. A suitable condition is therefore included in the recommendation requiring the building to be reduced in height to be more consistent with the approved height, and that the roof form be redesigned to better integrate with the architectural form of the building.

 

Increase in number of apartments

 

It is proposed to increase the number of apartments within the building from 100 to 113. This has been achieved by reducing the number of cross through apartments and results in the residential floor plates of the building being dominated by a double loaded arrangement. The use of the “slots” to allow for a double loaded arrangement of the floor plate was not considered by Council in the original assessment of the application as being adequate to allow suitable levels of amenity both in terms of light and ventilation to the apartments. Notwithstanding, the JRPP have accepted this approach as an appropriate design solution. I note that the proposed apartment layouts maximise the opportunities for light and ventilation by siting habitable rooms mostly to the external walls. However, the extent of operable glazing to the external walls along the “slots” would appear to be reduced, thereby lessening the ability to provide good levels of light and ventilation (see figures 3 & 4 below). As a significant proportion of the apartments will be reliant on the “slots” for light and ventilation, it is critical that these openings be maximised. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation requiring the amount of operable glazing to be increased consistent with the originally approved plans.

 

 

Excavation method and impact on trees

 

Council’s Landscape officer has provided the following assessment of the proposed change to the method of excavation and the impact on the trees located on the residential properties to the east:

 

“In order to minimise damage both above and below ground to the row of established trees that are growing on adjoining private properties to the east, in Elsmere Road, development consent was granted on the basis that the eastern wall of the basement would be constructed using a specific and complex technique, the ‘Aurecon shoring scheme’, that would result in a setback of 1200mm being provided from the eastern boundary at the southern end of the site, expanding out to 2700mm at the northern end of the site.

 

However, this S96A application not only seeks to depart from the Aurecon shoring scheme altogether, reverting to a more traditional diaphragm type wall, it also proposes that the basement wall setbacks from the boundary be drastically reduced to only 200mm at the southern end and 1600mm at the northern end.

 

A Root Mapping Report by Urban Forestry dated 24 February 2014 was received by Council via e-mail in early November 2014. This Report confirms (through the inclusion of photos) that the majority of roots from these trees are contained wholly within those properties in Elsmere Road, as once they reach the existing footing/wall, they are then deflected to the north and south.

 

While it is possible that some roots may still be encountered within the development site, based on the findings of the Root Mapping Report, the amount would be minimal, and in any case, would not comprise roots which are critical to the future health and stability of the trees.

 

On this basis, it is anticipated that performing the works at the approved setbacks would not have a major impact on any of their root systems, and while it may even be possible to relocate the basement wall closer to the boundary and trees, as is shown with this S96A application, without damaging roots, it is noted that this would result in other indirect impacts; being; an unacceptable and unsustainable amount of pruning, with root damage also likely to occur during installation of the ground anchors at such a close setback.

 

A joint site meeting was held with the consulting Arborist and developer on 12 November 2014 to confirm the extent of pruning that would be required. While a string line was provided along the line of the approved Aurecon basement wall, as discussed above, this S96 actually proposes that the eastern basement be constructed much closer to the eastern boundary and trees than the string line.

 

The pruning assessment confirmed unanimously that both a reduction in the setback from the boundary and a change in construction technique would have a direct and significant impact on all of the neighbouring trees.

 

While the selective pruning of overhanging branches was always going to be necessary, even as part of the approved Aurecon scheme, so as to provide a clearance for the piling rig operation, as well as to avoid damage to the trees, relocating the eastern basement wall as is shown on this S96 application would result in a catastrophic loss of foliage and branching structure to all of these trees, and is not an amount they could sustain.

 

Council is responsible for ensuring these neighbouring trees are reasonably protected from the adverse impacts of construction, which will not be physically possible if the eastern boundary wall is constructed as is shown on this current S96A application.”

 

The retention of the trees to the east were an essential element of the original approval in that they provided effective screening and softening of the appearance of mass associated with a 7 storey building that extends for a length of almost 100m. As such, the amended basement design and excavation method is not supported.

 

8.    S94A Contributions

 

The applicant is seeking to modify the Section 94A Development Contributions condition to allow them to be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card on a pro-rata basis at the excavation/ground works stage and the building construction stage.

Council has advised the applicant that as the Development consent for the subject DA granted on 27 March 2014 was not for a staged DA, the deferral request is inconsistent with Clause 20 of the s94A Plan. Therefore in accordance with Clause 17 of the s94APlan and the subject development condition, the levy must be paid to Council prior to the first Construction Certificate being issued for the proposed development (noting that 'development' includes·'demolition of a building or work' under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979).

 

9.    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.

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

The relevant provisions of RLEP 2012 would be satisfied subject to the imposition of appropriate condition as recommended. 

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

An amendment to SEPP 65 is currently on exhibition. Whilst the amendments are neither imminent or certain, the proposal subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as recommended, would be consistent with the principles of SEPP 65.

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

The relevant provisions of RDCP 2013 would be satisfied subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as recommended

 

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

NA

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

The relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 have been satisfied.

 

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

The environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposed development have been addressed within the body of this report

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

The site is located within an established Business centre with convenient access to variety of amenities and public transport services. The site has sufficient area to accommodate the proposed land use and physical structures.

 

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

Submissions that were received in response to the public notification and advertising have been addressed in the body of this report. 

 

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

The proposal would not result in any unacceptable environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, subject to the recommended conditions. The development is therefore considered to be in the public interest.

 

 

10. Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:      A vibrant and diverse community, leadership in sustainability, excellence in urban design and development, integrated transport and land use.

Direction:      Improved design and sustainability across all development, integrating transport and pedestrian links between town centres and key locations.

 

11. Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications relating to the roof form, increase in number of apartments and new shops at the ground floor would do not give rise to unacceptable amenity impacts and would generally maintain the physical massing of the approved development, if implemented in accordance with the recommended conditions. The proposed change to the method of excavation and extension of the basement are unacceptable and should be deleted for the proposed modifications.

 

Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Approval of the modification (subject to conditions) will not result in any significant environmental impacts and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Joint Regional Planning Panel, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No. DA/320/2013/A by modification of the approved development through basement car park alterations allowing increase to 283 vehicle spaces, changes to retaining walls within the eastern boundary setback, reconfigure ground floor retail to allow for  tenancies, increase number of approved units from 100 to 113, reconfigure apartment layouts and increase roof height at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington, in the following manner:

 

A.        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

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Date received

DA101

E

Bureau of Urban Architecture

14 March 2014

14 March 2014

DA102

DA102A

DA103

DA104

DA105

DA106

DA107

C

DA108

E

DA109

DA113

DA114

DA115

 

As amended by the Section 96’A’ plans as detailed below only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans.

 

Plan

Rev

Drawn by

Dated

Date received

DA101

F

MKD Architects

28 October 2014

30 October 2014

DA102

DA103

DA104

DA105

DA106

DA107

DA108

DA109

DA110

DA300

DA301

Sk01- Residential breezeway

A

MKD Architects

7 November 2014

12 November 2014

 

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

 

B.      Add the following conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

 

3(a)    The proposed roof over the northern section of the building (between gridlines 1 & 9) shall be lowered to a maximum RL of 52.82 and shall be redesigned to better integrate with the plant areas to the eastern side of the roof. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

(b)    The plant areas above apartment 914 and in the mezzanine level shall be deleted from the plans. Any additional plant that is relocated to the roof level must be integrated with the roof form pursuant to condition 3(a) and shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.

 

(c)    The amount of operable glazing to the “slots” shall be increased to be consistent with the plans dated 14 March 2014. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development

 

(d)    The terraced landscaping and basement areas shown on the S96A plans that extend beyond that of the originally approved plans dated 14 March 2014 are not approved and shall be deleted from the plans to be submitted with the construction certificate. Details must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development

 

(e)    The residential garbage rooms shall be sized to contain a total of 21 x 660 Litre (or 57 x 240 litre) bins for garbage and 57 x 240 litre bins for recycling with adequate provisions for access to all bins. Details showing compliance are to be included in the construction certificate

 

Amend Condition 23:

 

23.      External Colours, Materials & Finishes

 

The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures, including that of the colour backed glass to the ground floor (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, in accordance with section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the relevant building works.

 

Amend Condition 44:

 

Parking conditions

44.     Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the following amendments/requirements for parking allocation;

 

a)     A minimum of 72 spaces shall be allocated to the retail component (future supermarket & shops)

 

b)     Visitor parking for the residents must not be shared with the retail component.

 

c)     A minimum of 1 space shall be allocated to  each unit

 

d)     Three or 4 bedroom units shall be given preference if two spaces are intended to be dedicated to a unit.

 

e)     A minimum of two spaces in the residential parking level shall be dedicated for service and delivery parking

 

f)     Motorbike parking is to be provided at 5% of the total parking provision.

 

g)     Adequate provision is to be made for a minimum of 68 bicycle spaces (including 11 visitor spaces) on the residential parking levels.

 

h)     Adequate provision is to be made for a minimum of 9 bicycle spaces on the main retail parking level.

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                          2 December 2014

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M8/14

 

 

Subject:                  Draft Section 94A Development Contributions Plan 2014 and Draft Development Control Plan 2013- Undergrounding Powerlines

Folder No:                   F2014/00358

Author:                   Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner      

 

Introduction

 

This report recommends that the Council resolve to place a new draft Section 94A Developer Contributions Plan (draft s94A Plan) on public exhibition. It is a result of a comprehensive review of the current Section 94A Plan 2012 (s94A Plan 2012), which imposes a levy (as a condition of development consent or when a complying development certificate is issued) to be used towards the new provision or improvement to public facilities to meet the demands from new development. S94A monies can only be spent on capital works projects.

The new draft s94A Plan provides for a number of new capital works items including a number of works identified in the Support Plan associated with the City/South East Light Rail roll out program, undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre, and upgrades to the La Perouse Museum and Randwick Literary Institute. It also includes revised maps and population projections based on recently released statistical data, as well as some minor formatting changes.

This report also recommends that Council resolve to place a new draft Development Control Plan (draft DCP) on public exhibition. The draft DCP contains controls on the undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre, to support the provisions of the draft S94A Plan, in line with legal advice received. The draft DCP also contains controls for the undergrounding of overhead power lines in other areas in Randwick City, in line with existing Council policy. These controls apply to major developments only, including medium density residential and mixed-use buildings containing 40 or more apartments. Developments of this scale provide justification to impose conditions requiring the undergrounding of power.

 

A copy of the draft s94A Plan and draft DCP are at attachments 1 and 2 respectively. Following public exhibition and final adoption by Council, the draft s94A Plan will repeal and replace the current s94A Plan 2012 and the new provisions on undergrounding overhead power lines will be included in the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP).

 

Background

Section 94A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) authorises Council to impose as a condition of consent, a fixed levy based on the cost of development, when a development consent or complying development certificate is issued. Funds collected under the s94A framework are used to provide for additional or improved public facilities to meet expected demands arising from new development.

 

Council’s current s94A Plan 2012 has been in operation since July 2012. It provides an efficient, clear and effective approach to requiring developer contributions from applicants. The Plan’s levy framework is expressed as a flat percentage rate commensurate with the cost of works (ranging from 0.5-1%).  It sets a 5-10 year scenario for the implementation of a schedule of capital works covering a range of items from public domain improvements, road upgrades, and public art installations, to new multipurpose facilities, bushland regeneration and dune restoration. 

 

Randwick City receives, on average, $3 million in s94A funding per year. Unspent s94A funds are rolled over from previous years. Major development proposals have made a significant contribution to this (e.g. over $2 million has been received from the University of NSW since 2007). 

 

Section 94A funding collected over several years has contributed to a number of major projects, in conjunction with the Council’s Capital Works Budget and grant funding. Nearly $6 million has been spent on local infrastructure and services in Randwick City, benefitting the community as a whole, such as the Des Renford Centre.

 

This review will take on board, amongst other things, projects associated with the City to South East Light Rail, including public domain improvements, traffic calming and parking reconfiguration. These works will provide significant improvements for residents, businesses and visitors within the catchment, and their delivery will require a coordinated approach with the light rail roll out which is foreshadowed to commence in 2015.

 

At its meeting on 29 April 2014, Council resolved (Matson/Shurey) that Council:

 

“Take responsible steps to help residents and local businesses transition to light rail by endorsing, for the purposes of the preparation of draft budget plans, the allocation of $68 million for the Light Rail Support Plan measures and public domain improvements over the next 5 years with the introduction and the operation of the light rail subject to the following:

 

The General Manager’s advises that $10 million in funding will be available from section 94 plan contributions and Council request that the General Manager review the works Schedule of the section 94 Plan to reflect the works proposed”.

 

The s94A 2012 Plan review accordingly also addresses the above Council resolution.

 

Draft s94A Development Contributions Plan

The draft s94A Plan has been prepared in accordance with relevant guidelines, the EP&A Act and Regulation and Ministerial directions through s94E of the EP&A Act. The proposed amendments to the existing s94A Plan 2012 as shown in Attachment 1 are discussed in further detail below.

 

Schedule of Works

The current Plan’s Schedule of Works identifies ongoing and new projects for the next 10 years which are considered to best meet the community’s expectations and needs, as reflected in the Randwick City Plan. These capital works are also closely aligned to other long and medium term plans being the Council’s Financial Plan and Asset Management Strategy, Operational Plan, Cultural Plan and Parks Plans of Management. The Schedule addresses works under the five themes of the Randwick City Plan. It should be noted that many environmental projects previously funded under the ‘Looking After the Environment’ theme are now funded via Council’s ‘Environmental and Drainage levies’.

Key projects that have now been completed with partial funding from s94A, and which are proposed to be removed from the works schedule include:

 

·           Des Renford Leisure Centre.

·           Coogee Bay Road Stage 1 concept plan, design and implementation.

·           Randwick Community Centre Internal fit out.

 

Ongoing projects currently listed that will carry over to the new draft Schedule of Works include:

 

·           Coastal walkway-concept design and construction ($1,300,000).

·           Preparation and implementation of public domain strategies for town centre improvements ($500,000).

·           Plans of Management for various open space projects and pocket park embellishments ($1,000,000).

·           Laneway widening ($1,500,000).

·           Environmental improvements and remnant bushland regeneration ($900,000 combined). 

 

A number of new projects have been identified for inclusion in the draft s94A Plan. These works have been identified in Council resolutions, relevant planning documents and plans of management for funding. Proposed new additions to the Schedule of Works in the new draft s94A Plan are summarised as follows:

 

·           $10 million has been allocated towards works within town centres associated with the City to South East Light Rail roll out (in accordance with April 2014 Council resolution). Proposed works include provision of adequate parking, traffic calming works, creation of new plazas, and public domain upgrades in Kensington, Kingsford and Randwick to include new street furniture, and smart poles. The current s94A Plan 2012 allocated $8 million towards ongoing town centre improvements.

 

·           $3 million has been allocated towards the undergrounding of overhead power lines in Kingsford Town Centre to reduce clutter and improve the visual amenity of the streetscape.

 

·           $1,500,000 has been allocated towards the upgrade, adaptation and maintenance of La Perouse Museum and surrounds, planned to be vested to Council on a long term lease. The works will ensure its intended long term function, equitable access and improved usability.

 

·           $1,100,000 has been allocated towards the Randwick Literary Institute to bring the facility up to contemporary standards.

 

·           $2 million has been allocated towards Bunnerong Gymnastics Centre and Heffron Park Indoor Sports Centre (combined), both of which are Building for our Community projects; and

 

·           $1,100,000 has been allocated towards storm water harvesting schemes for the irrigation of turf ovals and parklands which have been identified as intensive water consumption sites (NB: s94A funding is required to supplement funding from the water savings budget of the environmental levy which has been reduced marginally in the new 5-year levy program).

 

The updated Schedule of Works will continue to ensure that funds are spent across all parts of Randwick City.  The Schedule of Works in the attached draft s94A Plan provides a summary of current and proposed works for comparative information purposes.

 

Updated S94A Provisions

The State Government has released revised population growth rates for the Metropolitan area including Randwick City. The population projection for Randwick City is 175,310 by 2031. The draft s94A Plan has accordingly been updated with the revised population projections.

The Regulations require an updated map in the s94A Plan indicating the approximate location of the capital works projects. The draft S94A Plan map has been updated to include the aforementioned capital works projects. In addition, the draft s94A Plan now provides an explanation of the benefits of the works associated with the light rail project and undergrounding power line program in line with legal advice received, which is supplemented with draft DCP provisions as further discussed below.

 

Draft DCP Provisions – Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines

In submissions to the State Government (EIS and Preferred Infrastructure Report) Council raised concerns that the City to South East Light Rail project would exacerbate existing visual amenity and urban clutter issues along Anzac Parade, via the introduction of an intrusive second set of poles and wires associated with the light rail infrastructure. The Light Rail Consortium has indicated that the cross spans (transmission lines that transverse across Anzac Parade) will be undergrounded as part of the light rail roll out. However, the remaining poles and overhead wires along the length of Anzac Parade will not be undergrounded as they are outside the scope of the Light Rail proposal.

Legal advice was recently sought on what legal mechanisms are available, if any, for Council to levy development within a specified area for the provision of undergrounding overhead power lines and associated infrastructure. The legal advice received confirms that Council’s s94A Plan can be amended to include the capital costs of works for the undergrounding of overhead power lines provided it is supported by appropriate controls in the DCP highlighting the public benefits for areas to be subject to undergrounding.

 

An analysis of the light rail alignment route along Anzac Parade in conjunction with consultations with Ausgrid (owners of the overhead power line infrastructure) indicates that Kingsford Town Centre is the most suitable precinct to commence the undergrounding program on the basis that:

·        It is a relatively small catchment and therefore less expenditure compared to undergrounding larger precincts (approximately $3 million dollars baseline not including cross spans).

·        There is a high concentration of overhead power lines and visual clutter stemming from the fine grain development pattern, fragmented ownership and relative narrowness of this section of Anzac Parade.

·        The undergrounding program for this section of Kingsford Town Centre would result in a substantial continuous length of Anzac Parade having no overhead power lines given that a significant area of the UNSW institutional precinct adjoining Kingsford has already been undergrounded (i.e. it would result in approximately 610 metres for the entire Town Centre being undergrounded and 1.2 km on the eastern side of Anzac Parade from 9 ways intersection to corner of Doncaster Avenue). 

Draft DCP controls have accordingly been prepared to supplement the provisions in the draft s94A Plan to facilitate the undergrounding of power lines in Kingsford Town Centre.

 

The draft DCP provisions also extend to other areas in Randwick City. It requires that power lines located adjacent to major redevelopment sites be undergrounded, where the development relates to the erection of a new mixed use or medium density residential building containing 40 or more apartments, or a substantial non- residential development. These provisions do not apply to smaller scale developments such as dwelling houses and dual occupancies. The draft DCP provisions are found in

Attachment 2.

 

Consultation

Both the draft s94A Plan and draft DCP provisions will be subject to the consultation requirements of the EP&A Act and Regulation. Once endorsed by Council, the draft Plan and draft DCP will be placed on public exhibition for a period of 28 days.

 

The community consultation program will include the placement of advertisements in the Southern Courier notifying of the exhibition, and a copy of the draft s94A Plan, draft DCP and supporting material made available at the Council’s Customer Service Centre, libraries, and Council’s website. The draft s94A Plan and draft DCP will also be distributed to Precincts and Chambers, and other local interest groups, inviting their feedback. 

 

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.

Direction 4b:     New and existing development is managed by a robust framework. 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:      Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of service.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The new draft s94A Plan will provide for a continuing revenue stream and enhance the Council’s ability to levy contributions for public amenities and services.

 

The draft s94A Plan is being prepared in-house with a budget of approximately $5,000 for exhibition, consultation, design, printing and finalisation costs.

 

Conclusion

 

This report provides information on the proposed amendments to Council’s s94A Plan 2012 and DCP and recommends that Council exhibit a new draft s94A Development Contributions Plan and draft DCP in accordance with the EP&A Act and Regulation. Once made, the new s94A Development Contributions Plan will repeal and replace the existing s94A Plan 2012 and the new undergrounding provisions will be included in the current DCP.

 

 

Recommendation

That:

 

a)     the attached draft s94A Development Contributions Plan (2014) be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

 

b)     the attached draft DCP provisions on the undergrounding of overhead power lines be placed on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

 

 

 

c)     Council agree that the Director City Planning may rectify any minor numerical, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors if required, in preparation for public exhibition of the draft s94A Plan and draft DCP consistent with Council’s resolution outlined above.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Draft S94A Plan

Included under separate cover

2.View

Draft DCP Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines

 

 

 

 


Draft DCP Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines

Attachment 2