Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 February 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 02 9399 0999 or

1300 722 542 (for Sydney metropolitan area)

Fax:02 9319 1510

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 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 - 2 December 2014

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

In respect to Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act, members of the public are advised that the proceedings of this meeting will be recorded for the purposes of clause 69 of Council’s Code of Meeting Practice.

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D1/15       34 Milford Street, Randwick (DA/505/2014)........................... 1

D2/15       204-230 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/592/2014)................ 21

D3/15       26 Wentworth Street, Randwick (DA/640/2014)................... 29

D4/15       43 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville (DA/774/2014).................... 35

D5/15       558A-580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/698/2013)............... 39

D6/15       32-34 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/725/2012/B)........................ 49

D7/15       275 Beauchamp Road, Matraville (DA/14/2015)................... 57

D8/15       2 Byron Street, Coogee (DA/24/2008/A).............................. 71

D9/15       18 Randwick Street, Randwick (DA/373/2014)..................... 87

D10/15     13 Cairo Street, Coogee (DA/731/2014)............................... 99

D11/15     496-504 Malabar Road, Maroubra (DA/9/2015)................... 119

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D1/15

 

 

Subject:                  34 Milford Street, Randwick (DA/505/2014)

Folder No:               DA/505/2014

Author:                    Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new three storey residential flat building containing 5 units and basement parking for seven vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works.

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               MHN Design Union

Owner:                    John and Desi Maurodontidis

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview19100.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This matter is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Garcia, Bowen and Nielson.

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new three storey residential flat building containing 5 units and basement parking for seven vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works.

 

The following table from the Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) details the components of the proposal:

 

 

Site History and Background

 

Restrictive covenant

There was a restrictive covenant A376725 relating to the subject site, which was registered on 30 April 1918. Under the covenant, the following restrictions applied:

… no building shall be erected on the said land any part of which shall be within thirty feet of the building line of Milford Street.

 

The proposed semi-basement car park and front balconies would have resulted in a breach against the provisions of the above covenant.

 

Pursuant to Section 81J (d) of the Real Property Act, the Registrar-General may extinguish a restrictive covenant upon the making of an application by the property owner.

 

Following the lodgement of the previous development proposal with Council, an application had been made to the Registrar General to have the covenant set aside pursuant to Section 81J of the Real Property Act. The applicant has a title search dated 23 March 2010 and submitted copies of the Registration Notice from the Department of Lands dated 22 March 2010, which clearly indicate that there is no longer any covenant over the subject land.

 

Previous development applications relating to the site

DA/964/2009 Application for the construction of a part 3- and part 4-storey residential flat building comprising 2 x 1-bedroom dwellings at ground level, 1 x 3-bedroom dwelling at first level, 1 x 3-bedroom dwelling at second level, and semi-basement car park for 7 vehicles.

 

The application was refused by Council contrary to the officer’s recommendation on December 7, 2010 for the following reasons:

 

1.      The proposed wall height is considered excessive and does not meet Council’s development standard.

 

2.      The proposed FSR is considered excessive and does not meet Council’s development standard.

 

3.      The SEPP1 objections in relation to the variation to the development standard are not well founded.

 

Since the determination of this application the RLEP 2012 has been gazetted and the RDCP controls adopted. For the purposes of the subject site the most salient change relates to the increase in the permissible floor area from 0.65:1 under the previous LEP and 0.75:1 under the current LEP.

 

Site and Surrounding Area

The subject site is described as Lot B in DP 441827, No. 34 Milford Street, Randwick. The site is located at the north-western corner of the intersection between Milford and Judge Streets. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, rear boundary

15.235m

 

Southern, Milford Street boundary

12.955m

 

South-eastern corner splay

3.285m

 

Eastern, Judge Street boundary

30.555m

 

Western, side boundary

33.005m

 

 

 

499.5m2

 

The site is elevated approximately 0.7m to 1.3m and 1.3m to 2.0m over the Milford Street and Judge Street footpaths respectively.

 

At present, the site is occupied by a single-storey detached dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction. The site is adjoined to the west by a single-storey detached dwelling (No. 32 Milford Street). A 3.66m wide public footpath adjoins the site on its northern boundary. To the east of the site on the opposite side of Judge Street are a part 1- and part 2-storey detached dwelling (No. 7 Judge Street) and a part 3- and part 4-storey residential flat building (No. 30 Clyde Street). To the south of the site on the opposite side of Milford Street is a detached dwelling (No. 4 Judge Street).

 

The locality is characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses, in-fill multi-unit residential buildings and educational establishment.

 

Figure 1 Milford Street elevation of the existing dwelling on the subject site

Figure 2 Judge Street elevation of the existing dwelling on the subject site

 

Figure 3 Existing public footpath located adjacent to the northern boundary of the subject site

 

 

Submissions

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

 

·      20 Milford Street, Randwick

·      24 Milford Street, Randwick

·      26 Milford Street, Randwick

·      28 Milford Street, Randwick

·      30 Milford Street, Randwick

·      32 Milford Street, Randwick

·      31Pitt Street, Randwick

·      33 Pitt Street, Randwick

·      2 Judge Street, Randwick

·      3 Judge Street, Randwick

·      7 Judge Street, Randwick

·      7B Judge Street, Randwick

·      5A Courland Street, Randwick

·      1 Coogee Street, Randwick

·      228 Barker Street, Randwick

·      Randwick Precinct Committee.

 

Issues

Comments

The development will create a 3 storey wall which will significantly affect the amenity of living areas and views.

The proposed development complies with the applicable maximum building external wall heights. See Key issues section of this report.

Sunlight access will be affected and overshadowing is excessive.

The proposal complies with the DCP requirements in regard to solar access to surrounding properties.

Large terrace on ground floor will impact privacy and amenity of eastern verandah.

See Visual and Acoustic Privacy section of this report.

 

Balconies are not compliant and obstruct views.

See Visual and Acoustic Privacy and View Sharing sections of this report.

 

Concern over noise impacts from air conditioning units.

See Visual and Acoustic Privacy section of this report.

 

Setback to Milford Street not detailed on the plan.

The setbacks of between 8.605m and 9.705m has been detailed on the plan and is consistent with the setback of the adjoining dwelling at 32 Milford Street and that predominant in the street.

 

Non-compliance with setback requirements.

See Setbacks section of this report.

 

Excessive bulk, scale and height on an undersized allotment.

Development complies with the controls in relation to FSR, maximum height, external wall height and landscaped area.

 

Unacceptable privacy impacts created by balconies.

See Visual and Acoustic Privacy section of this report.

 

Alter the streetscape and social environment of the locality.

The proposed building will provide an appropriate streetscape fit.

 

Proposal is out of keeping with low density residential development in the area.

The development is permissible within the R3 –medium density zone and is a form of development which has been permitted on the land for over a number decades.

View Corridors will be affected.

See View Sharing section of this report.

 

Traffic impact is on locality is unsustainable.

The traffic generation associated with 7 vehicles would not adversely impact the environmental traffic capacity of the locality. The impact is sustainable.

 

Vibration during construction

A standard condition will include a requirement for dilapidation reports during excavation and construction to ensure the protection of surrounding properties.

 

Proposed development is inconsistent with the character of surrounding buildings and the locality.

There are a number of residential flat buildings in the immediate locality and the height bulk and scale is consistent with that envisaged under the planning controls for the locality.

 

Drainage and sediment and erosion control is inadequate.

Standard conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure compliance with the appropriate standards.

Possible subsidence.

A Geotechnical report was submitted with the application and standard conditions are included in the recommendation to ensure protection of surrounding properties.

Main pedestrian access should be relocated to the Judge Street façade.

The level of pedestrian traffic is not excessive given the intensity of use for 5 units only.

Lack of consultation with residents.

Notification and advertising of the proposed development was carried out in accordance with DCP provisions and any submissions received up to the finalization of the report are taken into consideration in the assessment.

Uppermost floor has no screening to balcony unacceptable privacy impacts.

See Visual and Acoustic Privacy section of this report.

Key Issues

The proposed development generally complies with the provisions of the DCP. The areas of non-compliance are addressed as follows:

 

Section 3.4 of the Randwick DCP 2013 – Setbacks

The DCP defines the following objectives in regard to setbacks

 

·        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 proposed development requires a rear setback of 5m and a side boundary setback of 2.5m. The proposal incorporates setbacks:

 

·    3.9m – 5.1m from the rear northern boundary to the outer face of the building and the proposed balconies are setback 2.8m from the rear boundary.

·    The building is setback 3.1m from the western boundary which exceeds the 2.5m minimum requirement.

·    The setback to the eastern side boundary is 1.88m to the ground and first floor levels and 2.8m at uppermost level to the outer face of the building balconies are setback a minimum of 1.772m.

 

The applicant provides the following justifications in respect of the strict numerical departures:

 

4.4.2 Setbacks

The DCP states that side setbacks are to be 2.5m where a site frontage width is between 14 and 16m. The DCP also states that the rear setback for the site is to be 5m. The proposed western side setback is 3.1m and complies with the control. However, the proposal has an eastern side setback that ranges from 1.8m – 2.8m at second floor, which does not comply with the side setback control. In addition, the proposal has rear setbacks which range from 2.8m to 5.1m. While a portion of the main building complies with the rear setback control, the balcony setbacks do not comply with the control.

 

The objectives of setback controls are to reduce the impact of development on adjoining land, ensure adequate separation between buildings for landscaping and amenity, and integrate development with the established streetscape character.

As indicated, the proposal is located on a corner site, at the intersection of Milford and Judge Streets, resulting in two (2) street frontages, one side boundary shared with No. 32 Milford Street to the west, and a rear northern boundary that fronts onto a public walkway.

 

The Council officer’s report made the following comments in respect of the previous DA side setbacks, stating inter alia:

“The eastern boundary setback does not meet the preferred solution. However, it should be noted that the site is a corner allotment with dual frontages to Milford and Judge Streets. The development provides a suitable architectural response to the corner location and appropriately addresses both frontages.

 

Due to the topography of the site, a podium containing car parking facilities will be constructed to provide a levelled platform for accommodating the flat building. The podium will be built up to the Judge Street boundary.

 

The proposal will utilise gabion walling comprising galvanised mesh filled with rocks and rubbles from site excavation to enclose the semi-basement car park. The submitted drawings have clearly demonstrated that the above wall treatment will provide a natural appearance to the street frontages.

Given that the building will be setback a minimum of 1.5m from the edge of the podium, the development will maintain a human scale to the footpaths and will not result in detrimental impacts on the visual quality and amenity of the public domain.

Therefore, the proposed eastern setback is considered to be satisfactory.”

 

In our opinion, as the proposed side setback from Judge Street is similar to the proposal, the majority of the above observations from the Council officer’s report would be applicable.

 

The proposal complies with the front setback requirements facing Milford Street. Along Judge Street, there is no consistent setback alignment that the proposed development can address. This is due to Judge Street containing numerous east-west and north-south subdivision patterns with varying street setbacks. The proposal therefore maintains a similar setback from Judge Street as the existing dwelling which, in our opinion, is acceptable given that the proposal increases landscaping opportunities along the eastern boundary and presents a more articulated street elevation.

 

The proposed rear setback, in our opinion is appropriate for the following reasons. Firstly, the northern boundary faces a 3.6m wide public walkway and not an adjoining residential property. This increases the separation between the site and the north western neighbour on the opposite side of the walkway.

 

Secondly, the proposal includes privacy screens at the north western corner of the first floor balcony in order to prevent overlooking onto the neighbouring property. While there is no privacy screen to the top floor balcony, this balcony adjoins a bedroom which, in our opinion is a secondary space. This balcony is therefore unlikely to be utilised in the same manner as a living room balcony.

 

While the previous DA had a different balcony configuration to the north, it is our opinion that the some of the related comments in the Council officer’s report are still applicable. These comments state, inter alia:

 

“The northern boundary of the site adjoins a 3.66m wide public walkway. The building separation between the subject development and the nearby properties at No. 31-33 Pitt Street will be effectively increased by this walkway.

 

The proposed rear facing balconies are attached to bedrooms, which are low intensity use areas within the dwellings. Privacy screens will also be installed to minimise direct overlooking.”

 

Finally, the proposal has been designed to integrate well within the established streetscape character and is unlikely to result in any adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring development. This is discussed in Section 5.2 of this report. Accordingly, in our opinion, the proposed setbacks are appropriate.

 

The justifications provided are considered to have merit. Moreover, despite the departures the proposal achieves a form of development that is consistent with the objectives of the DCP in that:

 

·     The proposed development incorporates a setback to Milford Street consistent with the prevailing setback and will include front gardens so as to contribute to the character of the area notwithstanding the contemporary design of the proposed development.

 

·     Subject to those matters addressed in the body of this report and amendments required by condition 2 of the recommendation, the proposal incorporates adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

 

·     The layout of the proposed development incorporates landscaped areas including deep soil areas in excess of the requirements under the DCP allowing for the creation of functional open spaces and deep soil planting.

 

Furthermore, clause 3.4.3 (iii) of the DCP provides:

 

iii) The required rear setback may be varied in the following scenarios:

·      Allotments with an irregular shape.

·      Allotments with the longest boundary abutting the street or the rear adjoining neighbour (that is, the frontage width being longer than the site depth).

·      Allotments with the rear boundary abutting a laneway.

·      A central courtyard is provided in the development.

 

In this instance the property is bound by a pedestrian walkway of 3.66m in width. This in conjunction with the proposed setback provide for an adequate physical separation of buildings and private open spaces on adjoining properties.

 

Section 5.3 of the Randwick DCP 2013 – Visual Privacy

The DCP defines the following objectives in regard to visual privacy:

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

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

 

The proposal incorporates the following measures to ensure reasonable levels of privacy to neighbouring developments including:

 

·     Fixed screening to the western pedestrian entry and common stair well areas.

·     The provision of high set windows to the upper level window openings on the western façade.

·     Privacy screens on the northern façade of first floor unit 102.

·     A physical separation to surrounding dwellings in Milford and Judge Street by virtue of the respective road reserves of at least 21m.

 

Notwithstanding the above inclusions, the potential for unreasonable privacy impacts to the properties at Nos. 31 Pitt Street and 33 Pitt Street could be further reduced by increasing the dimensions of the proposed privacy screen of the balcony of rear level unit 102. Similarly, in relation to the northern balcony at the rear of unit 201 on the uppermost level, it is acknowledged that this balcony is adjacent to bedroom areas. Notwithstanding, given its northern aspect and connection both internally and externally to living areas within this dwelling, it is considered reasonable to require a minimum height privacy screen to the northern and western edges of this balcony.

 

Finally, it is noted that substantial existing vegetation on the property at No. 33 Pitt Street and to the southern edge of the walkway will also assist in privacy screening between developments. The required amendments are included in condition 2 of the recommendation.

 

With the above inclusions, acceptable mutual levels of privacy will be ensured.

 

Section 5.4 of the Randwick DCP 2013 - Acoustic Impact

The objectives of the DCP in regard to acoustic impact 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.

 

The proposal includes 4 air conditioning units within the western setback and concern has been raised in relation to potential adverse acoustic impacts. 2 of the 4 units can be easily relocated so as to allow for a further respective setback from the western boundary. Acoustic enclosures will be provided to these units and standard conditions are included in the recommendation which will ensure post installation validation of acceptable noise levels.

 

The acoustic impacts associated with the use of the proposed balconies and ground floor patio areas are not expected to generate unacceptable impacts beyond those anticipated by this permissible form of development.

 

Section 5.5 of the Randwick DCP 2013 - View Sharing

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

 

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

 

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.”

 

The existing views currently available to the neighbouring properties in question are described below:


 

No. 26 Milford Street

Views from the east-facing windows attached to the upper floor lounge room area. They consist of panoramic views of the sky-water interface and district views of Coogee Valley. The views are obtained from both a sitting and standing position.

Views from the front balcony on the upper floor level looking south-east. They consist of panoramic views of the sky-water interface and district views of Coogee Valley. The views are obtained from both a sitting and standing position. 

Views from the east-facing bedroom window on the upper floor level. They consist of panoramic views of the sky-water interface and district views of Coogee Valley, which are obtained with a person sitting or standing position.

Views from the east-facing sunroom window in the rear section of the upper floor level. They include views of the sky-water interface and the northern part of Coogee Valley. 

Views from the rooftop terrace above the front garage looking east. They consist of broken sky-water interface and distant buildings and existing vegetation in the locality.

No. 28 Milford Street

View impact with proposed development shown

 

The existing views currently obtained from the (southernmost) east-facing lounge room window primarily consist of distant vegetation, buildings and the skyline. The views are obtained at both a standing and sitting position.  

 

View impact with proposed development shown

 

Views currently obtained from the (middle) east-facing window attached to the rear living room consist of a portion of the filtered, distant sky-water interface broken by existing buildings and vegetation in the Coogee Bay area. The water views are obtained from a standing position and to a lesser extent from a seated position.

 

View impact with proposed development shown

The existing views currently obtained from the (northernmost) east-facing window attached to the rear living room consist of a portion of the distant sky-water interface broken by existing buildings and vegetation in the Coogee Bay area. The water views are obtained from a standing position and to a lesser extent from a seated position.

No. 30 Milford Street

 

View impact with proposed development shown

 

  

Close-up view obtained from the windows View impact with proposed development shown

The east-facing windows attached to the first floor master bedroom currently enjoy horizon views of the sky-water interface and district views of buildings and vegetation in Coogee Valley. The views are obtained at both a standing and sitting position.

 

No. 32 Milford Street

View impact with proposed development shown

Views obtained from the ground floor eastern facing front verandah looking south-east. At present, horizon views of the sky-water interface as well as district views of buildings and vegetation in Coogee Valley are obtained. The views are obtained from a standing position and to a lesser extent at a sitting position (Height poles shown in location of previously proposed development refused by Council).

 

View impact with proposed development shown

The views currently obtained with a person standing at the side door of the study room include:

·      Filtered water views interrupted by existing vegetation in the locality and buildings at a distance, obtained from a standing or seated position facing east.

·      Partial sky-water interface views punctuated by existing vegetation on the subject site and the verandah columns, obtained with a person standing and to a lesser extent seated and facing south-east.

 

 

View impact with proposed development shown

 

Views currently obtained from a person standing at the doorway to the secondary bedroom consist of:

·      Filtered water views interrupted by existing vegetation in the locality towards the east.

·      Distant sky-water interface views interrupted by the verandah columns looking the south-east.

·      District views of Coogee Valley towards the south-east.

 

 

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.”

 

No. 26 Milford Street

First floor lounge room windows

Views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing and sitting views

First floor front balcony

Views obtained across the side boundary and from the front boundary;

Standing and sitting views

First floor bedroom windows

Views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing and sitting views

First floor rear sunroom windows

Views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing views and to a lesser extent sitting views

Roof top terrace above front garage

Views obtained primarily across the side boundary and to a minor extent from the front boundary;

Standing and sitting views

No. 28 Milford Street

Lounge room window (Northernmost)

District views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing and sitting views

Rear living room window (Middle)

Views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing views

Rear living room window (Southernmost)

Views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing views

No. 30 Milford Street

Upper floor master bedroom window

Views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing and sitting views

No. 32 Milford Street

Front verandah

Views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing views and to a lesser extent sitting views

Study room

Views obtained across the side boundary;

Standing and to a lesser extent sitting views

Secondary bedroom

Views obtained across the side and front boundaries;

Standing and to a lesser extent sitting views

 

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.”

 

Location

Extent of impact

No. 26 Milford Street

First floor lounge room windows, first floor front balcony, first floor bedroom windows, first floor rear sunroom windows, roof top terrace above the front garage.

Based on the height of the ridgeline on the dwelling at No 32 Milford Street in relation to the height of the proposed development it is evident that the proposal will have a negligible impact on existing views.

No. 28 Milford Street

Lounge room windows (northernmost, middle and southernmost)

Having regard to the extent of impact as detailed on the photos including distant sky-water interface views and those views which we be retained the impact is considered to be minor to moderate.

No. 30 Milford Street

Upper floor master bedroom window

The proposal will affect some of the distant sky-water interface views; however a substantial portion of this view will be maintained. The degree of the impact is considered to be minor to moderate.

No. 32 Milford Street

Front verandah, study room and secondary bedroom

The proposal will affect some of the distant sky-water interface views however a substantial portion of this view will be maintained. The degree of the impact is considered to be minor to moderate.

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.”

 

It is evident that:

 

·      The proposal complies with the maximum allowable FSR and maximum allowable height limit of 9.5m under the RLEP.

·      The proposal complies with the landscaped area and external wall height, of the Randwick DCP.

 

·      The encroachment on the setback requirement to balconies at the rear of the property does not cause unreasonable view sharing impacts.

·      Considerable effort has been given to carrying out a skilful design which has the clear intent to minimise impacts on surrounding properties.

·      The proposal creates reduced impacts compared to the application previously refused by Council (contrary to the officer’s recommendation).

 

Figure 4: West elevation of the proposed development showing the outline of the previously proposed building envelope determined to have an acceptable impact on view loss.

 

The proposal is considered reasonable having regard to the Tenacity principle and the view sharing objectives of the DCP. The application is supported in this regard.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal satisfies the relevant planning controls applicable and the departures from DCP provisions have been justified as detailed in the body of this report. The proposal is worthy of support.

 

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. 505/2014 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new three storey residential flat building containing 5 units and basement parking for seven vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works at No. 34 Milford Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

                               

Non Standard Conditions

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

 

a.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the western and northern edges of the balcony at the rear of unit 201 on the second floor. On the northern edge the screen is to extend east to screen the first sliding door window as shown on the northern elevation (drawing DA11 C). The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     The privacy screen provided to the northern edge of the first floor rear unit 102 is to extend east to screen the first of the sliding doors shown on the western elevation (drawing DA11C). The screen is to be semi-operable to preclude opening beyond a 45 degree angle to from right to left. 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.

 

c.     Section detail of the amendments required in 2 a. and 2 b. and all privacy screens within the development to a scale of 1:50 is to be submitted to and approved by Councils Manager of Development Assessment prior to issue of a construction certificate.

 

d.     The 2 air conditioning units closest to the western boundary as shown on the ground floor plan (drawing DA04 C) are to be relocated north to the inset section of wall. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

e.     The washing line area shown at the front of unit 001 on the ground floor (drawing DA04C) is to be removed. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

f.      The stormwater pipes shown on the western elevation (drawing DA12 C) shall be relocated to run straight down the stair wall north of the louvre screen. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

g.     The courtyard shown as allocated to Part lot 1 (ground floor front unit) on the draft Strata plan is to be allocated as common property. An amended draft Strata Plan is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 34 Milford Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D2/15

 

 

Subject:                  204-230 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/592/2014)

Folder No:               DA/592/2014

Author:                    Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                 Construction of a new concrete driveway to the rear of the building at 184-192 Marine Parade

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mr A Borg

Owner:                    Maroubra Seals Sports and Community Club Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview38260.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee Meeting for determination and assessed by an external planning consultant as a Council employee is a family member of the applicant.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

Construction of a new concrete driveway within an existing right of carriageway. The concrete pavement is to extend 34.2m from the boundary with McKeon Street and intended to provide access to the existing rear vehicle body repair workshop.

 

Site

The site is part of an existing right of carriageway.  The area to be sealed with concrete is 3.07m x 34.2m and is shown outlined in red in Figure 1.  The premises operated by the applicant is labeled as “(subject tenancy)” in Figure 1.

 

Figure 1: Extract of revised plan submitted with DA/592/2014

 

The right of carriageway is within the title of Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 807314.  Lot 1 is shown outlined yellow in Figure 2.  The area within the right of carriageway proposed to be concreted is indicated by the extent of the red arrow in Figure 3.

Figure 2: Location map of Lot 1 DP 807314 (Source: maps.six.nsw.gov.au)

 

Figure 3: Location of area to be concreted within the right of carriageway (Source: maps.six.nsw.gov.au)

 

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:

 

·        Michael Daley MP Member for Maroubra

·        Owners Corporation 43731 for No.1A Fenton Avenue, Maroubra and residents of No.1 Fenton Avenue

 

The submission from Michael Daley MP called attention to the submission from the Owners Corporation 43731.  The remaining submissions raised the following issues relevant to the assessment of the application:

 

·     History of inappropriate use of part of the right of carriageway for the storage of vehicles undergoing repair ancillary to the Maroubra Bay Garage located at 194-196 Marine Parade;

·     Insufficient information submitted with the application to determine the intended future use of this section of the right of carriageway;

·     Concern that appropriate owner’s consent has not been provided for the application;

·     Commencement of works without development consent;

·     Potential encroachment of utilities within the right of carriageway;

·     Concern that the existing security gates at the boundary with McKeon Street will be removed and associated risks of unauthorized access;

·     Potential for proposal to be incompatible with the flooding potential of the site; and

·     Potential obstruction of the right of carriageway preventing emergency access and egress.

 

The following assessment comments are made in response to the issues raised in the submissions:

 

·     Conditions are recommended that the use of the right of carriageway continue to be consistent with the legal terms of the right of carriageway being that the area is to remain clear and unobstructed for the movement of pedestrians and vehicles;

 

·     A revised plan has been submitted by the applicant to confirm the dimensions of the proposed concreting work;

 

·     Owners consent has been provided for the lodgement of the development application;

 

·     Works undertaken without development consent are subject to separate investigations by Council;

 

·     Conditions are recommended that any utilities and stormwater drainage are to be formally included in the legal terms of the title to the relevant allotment;

 

·     The development application does not include the removal of existing gates at the McKeon Street boundary.  The installation or removal of gates does not require development consent and is subject to the terms and conditions of private property use and lease arrangements;

 

·     Conditions are recommended to ensure stormwater management is consistent with relevant Australian Standards and Randwick City Council’s Private Stormwater Code.

Key Issues

 

The key issues for the assessment and determination of the development application are:

 

·     Compatibility of sealed surface with stormwater management;

·     Compatibility of sealed surface with interface of structures on the boundary; and

·     Continued function of the right of carriageway in accordance with a Section 88B instrument that prescribes the use of the land.

 

These issues can be addressed with recommended conditions of consent to ensure that:

 

·     Finished surface levels are compatible with the management of stormwater in accordance with Randwick City Council’s Private Stormwater Code;

·     that the edges of the new concrete pavement are suitably treated to maintain the structural integrity of, and provide suitable water protection for, all structures (including pavements, buildings, fencing and the like) which abut the boundary of the right of carriageway;

·     The future use of the concreted section of the right of carriageway shall be consistent with the legal terms of access and use as prescribed by the Deposited Plan 807314 and the accompanying Section 88B Instrument; and

·     The carriageway to be kept clear for the movement of vehicles and pedestrians in accordance with the terms of the Deposited Plan and Section 88B Instrument.

 

The proposal is compliant with the relevant requirements of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

 

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 key issues can be addressed with recommended conditions of development consent as detailed in the Development Application compliance report.  The proposal complies with all relevant requirements of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan.

 

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/592/2014 for Construction of a new concrete driveway to the rear of the building at 184-192 Marine Parade, Maroubra at Lot 1 in Deposited Plan 807314 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

 

Certifier Responsibilities

5.       The certifier responsible for the issue of a Construction Certificate shall ensure:

 

(i)    excavated material is appropriately disposed of at a licensed facility;

(ii)    necessary soil erosion and sedimentation control measures are in place for the protection of the environment during construction;

(iii)   all drainage works and concrete structures (including reinforcing) are completed in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and in accordance with Randwick City Council’s Private Stormwater Code; and

(iv)   that the edges of the new concrete pavement are suitably treated to maintain the structural integrity of, and provide suitable water protection for, all structures (including pavements, buildings, fencing and the like) which abut the boundary of the right of carriageway.

 

Design Alignment levels

7.       The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage in McKeon Street.

 

The design alignment level/s at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway/kerb/footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0923.

 

Design

8.       The gradient of the concrete surface must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the levels of the finished concrete must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council).  Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

Stormwater Drainage

9.       A surface water/stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)     Surface water/stormwater drainage systems must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

 

b)     The surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or, subject to site suitability, the stormwater may be drained to a suitably designed absorption pit;

 

c)      Any absorption pits or soaker wells should be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance;

 

d)     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises;

 

Use of right of carriageway

19.     The future use of the concreted section of the right of carriageway shall be consistent with the legal terms of access and use as prescribed by the Deposited Plan 807314 and the accompanying Section 88B Instrument.

 

20.     The carriageway to be kept clear for the movement of vehicles and pedestrians in accordance with the terms of the Deposited Plan and Section 88B Instrument.

 

21.     Any drainage of stormwater from private allotment Lot 7 in Deposited Plan 14608 over the right of carriageway is to be formally registered on the title of Lot 1 DP 807314.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 204 - 230 Marine Parade, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D3/15

 

 

Subject:                  26 Wentworth Street, Randwick (DA/640/2014)

Folder No:               DA/640/2014

Author:                    City Plan Services, Pty Ltd     

 

 Proposal:                Alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling including new first floor addition and new double garage with storage shed fronting Dangar Lane (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr C J Kimber

Owner:                    Ms C A Shand & Mr C J Kimber

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview52095.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the applicant has indicated that they have a close personal relationship with a Councillor.

Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations to the rear of the existing dwelling including a new first floor addition and new double garage with storage shed fronting Dangar Lane (Heritage Conservation Area).

 

The proposal will retain the front original part of the dwelling including original roof form to Wentworth Street.  The new additions seek to replace non-original elements of the dwelling located to the rear of the main roof form.

 

The new ground floor additions include a bathroom and an open plan kitchen, living and dining area.  The new first floor additions include two bedrooms fronting Wentworth Street, a bathroom, laundry, outdoor drying area, open study and master bedroom with walk in wardrobe, ensuite and rear deck.  The first floor addition is located behind the original roof ridge.  The proposed garage would replace the existing double garage.

 

The proposal includes minor excavation works to the rear of the site to accommodate concrete footings associated with the new additions but does not seek to undertake any bulk excavation works.

 

Site

 

No. 26 Wentworth Street (Lot 15 Section 20 DP 4589) has a total area of 418.10m2 with a frontage of 9.145m and a depth of 46m.  The site currently contains a detached single storey residential dwelling and a single storey double garage which fronts onto Dangar Lane, which is common with the rear boundary.  The site slopes down by approximately 0.31m from Wentworth Street down to Dangar Lane.

 

No. 26 Wentworth Street is located in the C1 North Randwick heritage conservation area.

 

photo of the site

Figure 1: The front of 26 Wentworth Street

photo of Dangar Lane

Figure 2: The rear double garage facing on to Dangar Lane

 

The area predominantly consists of detached single storey Federation and Inter-war housing.  Whilst many buildings have been substantially altered, there has been very little redevelopment relative to other parts of Randwick.  Most buildings and streetscapes retain their essential period and character.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

The key issues with No. 26 Wentworth Street are those relating to heritage as the site is within a conservation area. As such, it contributes to the primary residential character of the locality.

 

A Heritage assessment undertaken by Wilkinson and Associate Architects accompanying the application concluded that the proposal would have no adverse impact on the conservation area. However, Council’s heritage consultant nevertheless raised the following concerns:

 

·      First floor additions to single storey residences in Conservation Areas should occur in a way in which retains the form and detail of the original roof. The extent and form of the proposed works would compromise the existing roof form.  Additionally the proposed cladding and detailing of the forward section to the first floor additions fails to complement the materials, proportions or forms of the existing residence. 

 

·      The design of any proposed additions or alterations must complement the existing building.  The current application for 26 Wentworth Street, particularly in the forward section set into the main roof, departs from this approach and would distort the overall roof form.

 

·      The proposed additions fail to mitigate the overall impact of the proposed works, and the adjacent previous additions, upon the significance of the building and its contribution to the Conservation Area

In order to achieve additions cohesive with the contributory significance of the residence to the Conservation Area the heritage consultant made the following recommendations:

 

1.  The proposed first floor additions should amend the forward section in a manner which reduces the visual impact and extent of intrusion into the roof form and the height above the existing ridgeline. The proposed floor plans indicate substantial capacity for relocation of the bedrooms from the forward section of the first floor back into the centre of the floor plan enabling the location of service rooms within a narrow intrusion into the original roof and at a lowered ceiling height.

 

2.  The application should provide greater attention to reinstating and/or conserving the original fabric and detail in order to mitigate the visual impact of first floor additions.

 

3.  Streetscape aspects of the proposal should address suitable landscaping to the front yard and potential replacement of the intrusive front fence with a fence enhancing the subject building, the streetscape setting and Conservation Area.

 

In response, the applicant has stated that they would be willing to rebuild the front fence but would not be willing to negotiate on the existing floor plan and design of the proposed development.

 

It is considered the identified design amendments can be achieved without fundamentally altering the design 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

 

Design amendments to resolve the issues identified by Council's external heritage consultant are necessary to ensure the proposal makes a positive contribution the heritage conservation area in which the site is located.

 

If these matters were addressed it is expected the development would be of a form that could be supported However the applicant has indicated that they are not willing to amend their proposal, and accordingly the application has been assessed as lodged.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 640/2014 for alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling including new first floor addition and new double garage with storage shed fronting Dangar Lane (Heritage Conservation Area) at 26 Wentworth Street, Randwick, for the following reasons:

 

(1)     The proposal is contrary to Section 79C(1)(a)(i) of the Environmental Planning and  Assessment Act 1979 as it fails to meet the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential Zone in Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

          Particulars

          a)   The proposal fails “to recognize 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”. The proposal is not in keeping with the existing character of the Heritage Conservation Area due to the intrusive nature of the first floor additions and the choice of external materials.

 

(2)     The proposal is contrary to Section 79C(1)(a)(iii) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as it is inconsistent with the provisions of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

Particulars

          a)   The proposal is not satisfactory for the purposes of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 [B2 Heritage 2.3 (iv)] which requires that "additions must not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the existing buildings      

 

          b)   The proposal is not satisfactory for the purposes of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 [B2 Heritage 2.2 (vi)] which requires that "the design of any proposed additions or alterations must complement the existing building in its scale, form and detailing."

 

(3)     The proposal is contrary to Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as the proposal will not achieve a suitable built form outcome for the setting and context of the site.

 

Particulars

a)   The configuration and integration of the first floor additions with the existing dwelling is not of a form or presentation that will achieve a suitable outcome for the heritage conservation area in which the site is located.

 

(4)     The proposal is contrary to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

          Particulars

The proposal would not be in the public interest as the development will impact on the qualities and values of the C1 North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 26 Wentworth Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D4/15

 

 

Subject:                  43 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville (DA/774/2014)

Folder No:               DA/774/2014

Author:                    Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 New carport and awning to the front of the existing dwelling house

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mr R G Pazderka

Owner:                    Mr R G Pazderka

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview17093.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee for determination and has been assessed by an external Consultant as the applicant is a family member of a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The application proposes the demolition of an existing carport and construction of a new carport and a new awning to the front entry and existing patio.

 

Site

 

The site is known as No.43 Murrabin Road, Matraville.  The legal description of the site is Lot 56 in Deposited Plan 16138.  The site is located on the southern side of Murrabin Avenue.  The lot is 11.885m wide and 44.195m long.  The total area of the site is 525.5m2.

 

The site contains a single storey detached dwelling.  The existing carport is attached to the eastern external wall of the dwelling and extends between the dwelling and the eastern side boundary.

 

The neighbouring properties to the east and west contain single storey dwellings and the streetscape and neighbourhood are characterized by single storey detached dwellings with pitched roofs. On-site parking is typically in the form of garages, carports and open hard stand spaces within the side setback areas or driveways along a side boundary to garages within a rear yard area.

 

Figure 1: Photo of subject site

Submissions

 

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

 


Key Issues

 

The key issue for the assessment of the application is the setback of the carport roof from the front boundary.  The carport roof is proposed to extend to within 4.1m of the front boundary.  The support posts of the carport are to be in line with the front façade of the dwelling.  Control 6.2 to Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan specifies the circumstances where parking facilities can be provided forward of the front building line.  These circumstances relevant to the proposal are:

 

·               no alternative feasible location

·      does not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas;

·               does not pose risk to pedestrian safety; and

·      does not require significant contributory landscape elements.

 

The proposed location for car parking is the best feasible option within the site and will have no adverse visual impact to the streetscape due to the narrow, flat roof profile and the support posts being aligned with the dwelling façade.  The carport does not obstruct lines of sight and will not be detrimental to pedestrian safety.  The existing landscaping within the front setback which includes mature palms and a large frangipani tree will be retained.

 

The proposed carport satisfies those circumstances and complies with all other relevant provisions of Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan and 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 proposed carport and awning will have minimal visual impact on the external appearance of the dwelling.  Both structures provide practical and functional purposes which enhance the amenity of residents and will not be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties or the streetscape.  There will be no detrimental environmental impacts.  The proposal complies with the relevant LEP and DCP requirements.

 

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. D0774/2014 for demolition of an existing carport and construction of a new carport and awning to be attached to the existing dwelling house at No. 43 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville 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

a.     The colours and finishes of the awning, carport and side boundary fence shall match the exterior colours of the dwelling to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

b.     The height of the side boundary fence is to be tapered within the front setback to match the height of the existing masonry boundary fence to be retained.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 43 Murrabin Avenue, Matraville

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D5/15

 

 

Subject:                  558A-580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/698/2013)

Folder No:               DA/698/2013

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                 Construction of a new detachable second floor terrace projecting over the foot path on the Anzac Parade frontage at South Sydney Juniors Rugby League Club.

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               South Sydney Juniors Rugby League Club

Owner:                    Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the Roads and Maritime Services requires Council’s support to provide concurrence for the subject application in accordance with Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

 

 

1.       Proposal

 

The subject application seeks to construct a detachable second floor terrace located over the public footpath fronting Anzac Parade. No increase in patrons is sought, and the proposed operating hours are consistent with the previous approvals for internal terraces which face Anzac Parade:

 

Monday – Thursday:                  9:00am – Midnight

Friday - Sunday:                               9:00am – 1:00am.

 

2.       Site

 

The subject site is described as Lot 100 in DP 1108075, No. 558A to 580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford. The site is triangular in shape and has dual frontages towards Anzac Parade (130.79m) and Wallace Street (135.4m). The site has an area of 4711m2

 

The site accommodates a 4-storey building occupied by the South Sydney Juniors Rugby League Club. Pedestrian access to the club is available from both Anzac Parade and Wallace Street. Vehicular access to the parking levels and service areas is obtained via Anzac Parade and Wallace Street respectively. The area that forms the subject of this application is the ‘Swordfish Restaurant’ located on the second floor of the building.

 

A mixture of detached and multi-unit residential development is located along either side of Anzac Parade in the immediate locality. Detached style dwellings are located along Wallace Street. A public open car park is located in the centre median of Anzac Parade.

 

Council is the Roads Authority of the subject section of Anzac Parade. Also identified as a classified road, any works within the road reserve are required to obtain RMS concurrence in accordance with Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 before approval can be granted.  

 

Image 1: South Sydney Juniors Rugby Club, location of proposed development when viewed from Anzac Parade.

 

 

 

3.       Submissions

 

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

 

4.       Key Issues

 

4.1   Noise

The proposed internal terrace is anticipated to result in additional noise impacts to the street given that the open nature of the terrace will not provide a complete acoustic barrier.

 

An acoustic report was provided by the applicant to address Council’s acoustic concerns. A report from Rodney Stevens Acoustics provides that the proposal will comply with the relevant noise emission standards for licensed premises with the following noise treatments:

       

·          Glazed balustrade achieving an overall height of 2.0 m above FFL provided along the perimeter of the 2nd floor terrace.

·          The underside of the ceiling above the 2nd floor terrace finished with a suitable absorptive acoustic panel (minimum NRC 0.70).

·         No amplified music or public address system will operate on this Terrace.

·         Club management will continue to ensure that unreasonable or excessive patron behaviour is not permitted in the proposed 2nd floor terrace.

 

As discussed within the compliance report by Council’s Environmental Health Officer, the additional noise impacts are considered acceptable with the inclusion of additional conditions, as were required for the previously approved internal terraces located along Anzac Parade.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the location of the proposed terrace is considerably buffered from nearby residential development by six traffic lanes on Anzac Parade, a parking island and a commercial business premises (car wash) as shown below:

 

photo 1

Image 2: Image taken from the second floor of South Sydney Juniors Rugby Club. Anzac Parade, a car parking island and a car wash provide a buffer between the proposal and the existing residential development.

 

Given the distance between the proposed development and residential development and inclusion of conditions recommended by Council’s Environmental Officer and the applicant’s acoustic engineer, the proposal is considered acceptable with regard to protecting the amenity of nearby residential development and ensuring that late night hours are located in an appropriate location to minimise the environmental impacts on the surrounding built environment.

 

4.2          Concurrence from the Roads and Maritime Services (RMS)

The proposal in its initial form was not supported by the RMS, and concurrence withheld from the application for the following reason:

 

-    RMS does not support the construction of any new buildings or structures for private benefit, for non-road related purposes, within the Anzac Parade road reserve (unlimited in height of depth).

 

The applicant has provided the following sites as precedent examples of structures constructed within the road reserve for a private benefit within the LGA:

 

Protruding terraces similar to the subject proposal within the Randwick Local Government Area

Image 3: Randwick Labor Club – Alison Road, Randwick – Classified Road

Image 4: Coogee Legion Club – Arden Street, Coogee

Image 5: Five’Os Coogee Hotel – Arden Street, Coogee

 

Other examples of terraces granted concurrence by the RMS were provided by the applicant within other LGA’s including:

 

-    Tea Gardens Hotel, Bondi Junction

-    Ravesis, Bondi Beach

-    The Grand Roxy, Brighton le Sands

-    Commercial Premises, Mascot

-    Wolloomooloo Bay Hotel, Woolloomooloo

-    Kinsellas Hotel, Taylor Square

-    Town Hall Hotel, Balmain

-    New Brighton Hotel, Manly

-    The Willoughby Hotel, Willoughby

-    Wollongong City Diggers, Wollongong.

 

Subsequent discussions held between the applicant and the RMS resulted in a modified proposal where the terrace was to be ‘detachable’. The RMS withdrew their refusal to grant concurrence for the proposal, subject to the following:

 

-    The RMS has not supported non road related permanent structures within a classified road reserve. Given that the protruding terrace has been redesigned as a detachable structure, the proposal warrants further consideration.

-    RMS concurrence is subject to ‘full’ Council approval.

-    Council and RMS shall be suitable indemnified against any claim and provision for future removal if required.

-    Council enters into a formal lease agreement to occupy the road reserve airspace.

 

As per the requirements of the RMS and controls within Section D12 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013), conditions of consent have been recommended for the applicant to obtain a formal lease agreement from Council for the proposed structure. An indemnity condition has been recommended within the conditions of consent as required by the RMS, and the application is referred to Council for determination to obtain ‘full’ Council support. It is noted that the application has received full support from all relevant Council sections. It is considered that the RMS requirements to grant concurrence have been fulfilled by the applicant or conditioned within the development consent. Whilst the applicant has relied of numerous other balconies over the roadway as precedents, each application must be assessed on its own merits. In this instance the degree of protrusion over the roadway is less conspicuous and consistent with the architectural elements of the façade that already extend into the airspace over the road reserve.

 

4.3   Previous internal terrace approval

DA/526/2014 was approved under delegated authority on 15 October 2014 to convert part of the internal area at the second floor level to an internal terrace with associated works. The intention of this application was to construct an additional internal terrace (similar to existing approved internal terraces) in the event that RMS continued to refuse concurrence. In light of the recent RMS comments to withdraw their refusal and consider a detachable terrace if supported by Council, the applicant will proceed with the subject application and surrender the conflicting approved internal terrace within the same location prior to the issue of a construction certificate. A suitable condition of consent has been recommended to this effect.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is permissible with the consent of Council on the subject site and generally complies with the standards, aims and objectives contained in the RLEP 2012. The development maintains a building envelope, height and façade treatment that generally meets the relevant criteria and fulfils these objectives.

 

The proposal adequately addresses the relevant assessment criteria and the objectives of the B2 Local Centre and SP 2 Infrastructure zones, the objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2013 and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 698/2013 for construction of a new detachable second floor terrace projecting over the foot path on the Anzac Parade frontage at 558A-580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford subject to the following nonstandard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report :

 

Non standard conditions

 

10.   Prior to the release of the Construction Certificate, the Development Consent and all stamped plans and documentation for DA/526/2014 are to be surrendered to Council.

 

14.   A qualified structural engineer shall certify that the balcony structure is self-supporting. Such certification must be provided prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate. Upon completion of the construction of the balcony, certification of the structural adequacy of the balcony must be provided to the Council.

 

15.   The Applicant shall provide proof of current liability and indemnity insurance to $20 million to the Council, prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. The insurance is to be extended to include the RMS being indemnified against any action that could result in litigation following any accident involving an errant motor vehicle colliding with the structure.

 

Any traffic control during construction must be carried out by accredited RMS approved traffic controllers.

 

24.   The following acoustic recommendations detailed in Acoustic Statement project no: 13797 dated 15th September 2014  are to be incorporated into the construction certificate:

 

Glazed balustrades achieving and overall height of 2.0 metres above FFL provided along the perimeter of the 2nd floor terrace;

 

The underside of the ceiling above the 2nd floor Terrace will be finished with a suitably absorptive acoustic panel (minimum NRC 0.70);

 

Details of compliance are to be provided to the private certifier and Council prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

25.   The contractor must keep a policy of public risk insurance with respect to the works on Council property. The limit of public risk shall be not less than $20,000,000 or such other sum as the Council may reasonably nominate in writing from time to time as the amount, which may be paid arising out of any one single accident or event.

 

NOTES:

 

a.      The policy shall extend to cover death or injury to any person and damage to property of any person sustained when such person is using or entering the proposed balcony area or the public footway directly beneath the balcony.

 

b.      The policy must name the Council as the owner and the contractors undertaking the work as the insured and must contain a clause that the insurer will not change the insurance without first giving the Council ten (10) days prior written notice.

 

c.      The insurance must be with an insurer approved by the Council and a copy of the policy or a certificate of insurance shall be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of work on Council property.

 

26.     A minimum 2 metre wide unimpeded pedestrian footway shall be maintained along the Anzac Road site frontage at all times during the construction works.

 

27.     Prior to erecting any scaffolding/formwork to facilitate works on the balcony structures, the applicant shall obtain an A-class hoarding permit. The applicant is advised to Contact Council Building Certification Unit (9399 0878) regarding this matter.

 

29.     A Certificate prepared by a professional engineer, shall be submitted to the Council / Accredited Certifier prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate certifying the structural adequacy of the balustrades to the external balconies. A copy of the certificate is to be submitted to Council.

 

34.     Prior to the issue of an occupation certificate, the applicant shall enter into a formal lease agreement with Council for use of the balconies located over the footpath (in public airspace). All costs associated with the rental evaluation, ongoing lease fees, lease preparation and legal costs incurred by the lessor (and lessee) shall be covered by the lessee. It is noted that the lease must be approved by the Department of Planning in accordance with Section 149 of the Roads Act 1993.

 

          The applicant is advised to contact Council’s Property Compliance Officer, (9399-0936), regarding Council’s requirements for the formal lease agreement.

 

35      Prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, a positive covenant under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919 shall be registered on the title of the subject property, which provides for:-

 

i.          The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to clean, maintain, renew and repair the balconies located over the public footway along the Anzac Parade site frontage, with all works being undertaken to the satisfaction of Council. The area shall be maintained in a clean, tidy and safe condition at all times;

 

ii.     The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to hold full public liability in relation to any claims, demands, writs etc. sustained as a result of the balconies located over the public footway along the Anzac Parade site frontage;

 

iii.    The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to keep a policy of public risk insurance with respect to the balconies along the Anzac Parade site frontage. The limit of public risk shall be not less than $20,000,000 or such other sum as the Council may reasonably nominate in writing from time to time as the amount, which may be paid arising out of any one single accident or event.

 

NOTES:

a.       The policy shall extend to cover death or injury to any person and damage to property of any person sustained when such person is using or entering the balcony areas, the public footway beneath the balcony.

 

b.       The policy must name the Council as the owner and the registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened as the insured and must contain a clause that the insurer will not change the insurance without first giving the Council ten (10) days prior written notice.

 

c.       The insurance must be with an insurer approved by the Council and a copy of the policy or a certificate of insurance shall be delivered by the registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to the Council.

 

iv.    The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to ensure that no structures are erected, nor goods stored, nor any work carried out in, on or over the public footway other than those approved by Council and the RMS.

 

v.     The registered proprietors of the Lot(s) burdened to meet the full cost for the balconies located over Council’s footpath to be removed (and the area reinstated to the satisfaction of Council), if either:-

 

·             The duration of the lease agreement (for use of public airspace) expires and a new lease is not entered into; or

·             The lessee fails to comply with the terms of the lease agreement and/or Council determines that the balconies are posing a safety hazard.

 

The positive covenant must not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

The proposed wording for the positive covenant shall be prepared by suitably qualified legal advisors and shall be to the satisfaction of Council. All costs associated with creating, reviewing and registering the positive covenant shall be met by the applicant.

 

36.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

38.     A report, must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development (including all external terraces, plant and equipment and general operational noise sources) satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent.  A copy of the report is to be forwarded to Council within 1 month of commencing the operation of the outdoor terrace.

 

The acoustic report is to include (but not be limited to);

·         Noise emission from the proposed development (e.g. operational noise, mechanical noise, monitoring from nearest affected residential premises during the use and operation of the premises when there is maximum occupancy to satisfy intrusiveness and amenity criteria)

·         Patron noise from the development having regard to the outdoor terraces and the proposed hours of operation.

·         Accumulative patron noise from maximum occupancy of the new outdoor terraces with the existing outdoor terraces.

·         Background noise levels shall be taken after 10:00pm in the absence of any other commercial premises operating in the area.

Any recommendations outlined in this report are to be implemented after appropriate approval by Council. 

 

41.     There is to be no entertainment, amplified music or general announcements on any part of the outdoor terrace.

 

42.           The maximum number of patrons able to be accommodated on the 2nd floor Function Terrace is 40.

 

43.     The premises shall be operated in accordance with plan of management dated 1 June 2014 titled “Souths Juniors Management Plan” at all times.

 

44.     The hours of the operation for the 2nd floor Terrace is restricted to:

 

Monday – Thursday:     9:00am – Midnight

Friday - Sunday:           9:00am – 1: 00am

 

45.     Accesses to all terraces are to be sign posted with signage stating “Quiet Area”.

 

46.     Security guards or a specially appointed members of staff must be provided at all times when entertainment or functions are held, identified as such by uniform (or the like), to take all reasonable steps to prevent noisy and unruly behaviour of patrons attending or departing the premises.  The security guards are to patrol the locality until half an hour after close or until the last patron leaves the vicinity of the premises, whichever is the later.  The number of security guards/personnel must be in accordance with the number specified in the Liquor License.

 

47.     The handrails and balustrades located on the terraces shall be designed so as to not facilitate the placing and/or storing or articles, glasses and the like.

 

48.     The licensee must establish and maintain a formal and documented system for the recording and resolution of complaints made to the licensed premises by residents. All complaints are to be attended to in a courteous and efficient manner and referred promptly to the licensee or duty manager. The appropriate remedial action, where possible, is to be implemented immediately and the licensee or duty manager is to contact the complainant within 48 hours to confirm details of action taken.

 

Upon reasonable prior notice, the licensee must make available the incident book to the police and Council officers.

 

49.     There are to be air locks installed onto all outside terraces. Both internal and external doors within the air locks are to be fitted with self-closing devices as recommended in the acoustic report.

 

50.     Council and the Roads and Maritime Services shall be suitable indemnified against any claim and provision for future removal of the protruding detachable terrace if required.

 

 

Attachment/s:

1.

DA Compliance Report - 558A-580 Anzac Parade, Kingsford

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D6/15

 

 

Subject:                  32-34 Carr Street, Coogee (DA/725/2012/B)

Folder No:               DA/725/2012/B

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                 Section 96(AA) modification of approved development by deletion of Condition 62 which requires undergrounding of the overhead powerlines and associated telecommunication cables located along the Carr Street frontage.

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               RPG Southern Pty Ltd

Owner:                    RPG Southern Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview25752.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to a the Planning Committee as the original application was refused contrary to the officer’s recommendation and was the subject of conciliation agreement pursuant to Section 34 of the Land and Environment Court Act.

 

1.       Proposal

 

The subject Section 96(AA) modification application seeks to modify the approved development by deletion of Condition 62 which reads as follows:

 

62.   The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead powerlines and/or telecommunication cables located along the Carr St site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the wires/cables to be relocated. All wires/cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

The original application was subject to an approval by the Land and Environment Court on a Class 1 appeal in Marchese & Partners Architects v Randwick City Council for the demolition of existing dwellings and construction of a part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit development comprising 11 units, basement carparking for 20 car spaces, landscaping and associated works on 8 April 2014.

 

2.       The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is located in Carr Street, which runs from Carrington Road down to the foreshore area at Coogee beach. The subject site is located at Nos. 32 and 34 Carr Street in Coogee and identified as Lot 1 DP 937437 and Lot 14 DP 976802, respectively.

 

The site has a northern frontage of 21.335m to Carr Street, site depth of 44.195m, southern (rear) side width of 21.335m to Waltham Street and an overall site area of 945.03sqm.

 

The subject site has a complex topography with a difference of up to 4m in levels from the existing rear yard to the Waltham Street frontage. RLs across the two sites range significantly, with varying differences in cross fall along the length of both properties.   

 

The adjoining sites to the east and west are presently occupied by single storey detached dwelling houses. The surrounding area is residential in character and comprises of a variety of development ranging from single storey detached dwellings, double storey dwellings and dual occupancies, non-residential uses (such as Crowne Plaza Hotel on the corner of Carr and Arden Streets to the east, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart to the south and Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney to the north west), two, three and five storey residential flat buildings, mixed use development and townhouses.

 

The surrounding area is inconsistent in terms of allotment size and general subdivision pattern resulting in varied setbacks and building orientation (see locality plan above, subject site denoted in pink). Of particular relevance to the subject application are the immediate adjoining sites to the west at No. 30 Carr Street and No. 4A Waltham Street, which each lie on their own Torrens title lots addressing Carr Street and Waltham Street, respectively. The length of the two properties lies along the western side boundary of the subject site. 

 

Image 1: Subject site

 

3.       Submissions

 

Given the minor nature of the application the subject application was not required to be notified in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

4.       Site History

 

12 November 2013:   DA/725/2012 was refused at the Planning Committee Meeting on 12 November 2013 for Demolition of existing dwellings, construction of a part 3/part 4 storey multi-unit development with 10 units, basement car parking for 19 vehicles, landscaping and associated works (SEPP1 objection to floor space ratio and building height controls).

8 April 2014:            Approval granted by the Land and Environment Court pursuant to Class 1 appeal proceedings of the above mentioned refusal.

23 September 2014: Approval granted at the Ordinary Council Meeting for a Section 96 modification of the approved development including amended basement levels and configurations, reconfiguration of residential floors, roof changes, revised landscaping and fence design.

5.      Section 96 Amendment

 

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

 

5.1         Substantially the Same Development:

In accordance with Section 96 (AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter that originally approved. As such, the development will remain substantially the same as the originally approved development and is eligible for assessment under Section 96 of the Act.

 

As discussed in the relevant sections of this report, the proposed modifications will not introduce any significant additional environmental impacts upon surrounding residential amenity (namely view loss, overshadowing or privacy impacts) or the streetscape.

Subject to the application of recommended conditions, the modified development will not result in detrimental environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality, and is considered to be within the public interest.

 

6.      Technical Officers Comments

 

Development Engineer

An application has been received to modify development consent for the proposed residential flat building at the above site.

 

The modification to the development consent relates to the proposed deletion of Condition No 62 of the DA Consent, which reads as follows:

 

62 The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines and/or telecommunication cables located along the Carr Street site frontage to be relocated underground. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be relocated. All wires/cables must be relocated underground to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that the above condition was included in the DA Consent as per the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, see below.

 

At the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005, it was resolved on the motion of Councillors Nash and Belelli that:

 

(a)    the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million;

 

(b)   the applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with Aerial Bundled Cables in the vicinity of the development site, when the cost of works on the site exceeds $1 million up to $2 million; and

 

(c)    the Director, City Planning investigate the feasibility of funding the undergrounding of existing overhead cables for new development under the new options provided for in the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (Developer Contributions) Act 2005.

 

Given that the proposed works will be in excess of $2 million the applicant will be required to meet all costs associated with replacing the overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site.

 

Development Engineering advises that should the condition be removed from the development consent it should be replaced with the following condition which requires the overhead powerlines to be aerial bundled as opposed to undergrounding.

 

Replacement Condition Recommendation

The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the Carr Street site frontage to be aerial bundled. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be aerial bundled. All wires/cables must be aerial bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.


7.      Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

The Development application has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the following relevant planning documents:

 

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

a.     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The proposal does not alter the overall form and function of the development as approved and complies with the main aims and objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

7.1         Policy Controls

 

a.       Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

Medium Density Residential

The proposal does result in any changes to the built form as approved and complies with the main aims and objectives of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

b.       Draft Development Control Plan 2013

Undergrounding Overhead Power Lines

At the 2 December 2014 Planning Committee Meeting, Council resolved to place on public exhibition the draft DCP provisions for the undergrounding of overhead power lines. The draft DCP is currently on exhibition and ends on 13 February 2015.

 

The draft DCP seeks to underground overhead power lines and associated telecommunications infrastructure to improve the visual amenity caused by infrastructure clutter. The draft controls require new development within the Kingsford Town Centre to underground the powerlines; in addition to major mixed use and medium density residential development within the Randwick LGA. The criteria for areas outside the Kingsford Town Centre to underground powerlines in accordance with the draft policy include development containing 40 or more apartments or are substantial non-residential development.

 

The subject development is residential with a total of ten units. Accordingly, in the event that the controls are implemented by Council, the policy will not apply to the subject development.

 

7.2   Council Policies

The policy for replacing overhead wires with underground cables was adopted at the Health, Building and Planning Committee meeting on 8 November 2005. This policy requires that applicants of development applications be required to meet all costs associated with replacing overhead wires with underground cables in the vicinity of the development site when the cost of works on the site exceeds $2 million.

 

The proposed Section 96 modification to delete Condition no. 62 fails to comply with provisions of Council’s policy on undergrounding of cables adopted on 8 November 2005.

 

However, the applicant has raised the following issues to support the deletion of condition 62.

 

·      Unlikely undergrounding of powerlines surrounding the subject site; and

·      The associated costs of underground cabling will cost in the vicinity of $296,054, which equates to 6% of the total cost of works.

 

In accordance with the judgement of Commissioner C Brown in the case of Kain Projects Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council (2009) NSWLEC 1407 in relation to Council’s undergrounding policy, the Commissioner identified a number of inadequacies in the policy and the questionable benefits of placing cables underground where existing overhead cabling in the surrounding area is likely to remain. The applicant has provided that previous residential flat development has not had such a condition imposed, including adjoining site 36 Carr Street within DA/470/2204. Through the imposition of the subject condition, a mixture of above ground and underground cabling would be achieved. The Court has held that this policy is not a satisfactory basis to impose such a condition where a minimal improvement in visual amenity may be achieved, and it is considered that the mixture of the two cabling construction would detract from the streetscape with a resultant haphazard implementation of the infrastructure.

 

The imposition of additional costs as supplied by the applicant significantly exceeds the applicable 1% Section 94A contribution of $ 163 300. The indicative costing supplied was considered to be relatively accurate based on other projects. Given the significant additional costs of undergrounding the powerlines in addition to the Section 94A contribution costs of $48,708, it is considered unreasonable to impose such a cost in light of the overall development.

 

Consequently, in this instance it would be unreasonable for Council to request that the applicant underground existing power lines given the proposal will not result in a net benefit of improving the visual amenity of the streetscape which was the intent of the Council policy. It is therefore recommended that this requirement be amended in line with the recommendations of Council’s Development Engineer to provide aerial bundling cables along Carr Street. In this instance aerial bundled cables provide a more practical measure than undergrounding of power given the cost of insulating wires are significantly less, will improve the visual appearance of reducing the number of overhead wires and reduces the potential safety hazard of overhead uninsulated wires. It is considered that the bundling of the powerlines will achieve the visual amenity outcome desired by the Council policy.

 

8.   Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Refer to section 7: Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Not applicable

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

The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Comprehensive DCP and draft DCP, except where discussed in the key issues section of this report.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The subject application was not required to be notified. 

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.

 

 

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 modifications proposed as part of this application do not alter the form and nature of the approved residential development. Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modification of the requirement for undergrounding of cables in condition No. 62 is considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted. It will continue to achieve the desired outcomes of the Council Policy and therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. 725/2012/B which required undergrounding of power at No. 32-34 Carr Street, Coogee, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 62 to read:

62.     The applicant shall meet the full cost for the overhead power lines located along the Carr Street site frontage to be aerial bundled. The applicant shall liaise directly with the relevant service utility authorities to organise for the cables to be aerial bundled. All wires/cables must be aerial bundled to the satisfaction of the relevant service utility authority prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D7/15

 

 

Subject:                  275 Beauchamp Road, Matraville (DA/14/2015)

Folder No:               DA/14/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Strata subdivision of the approved attached dual occupancy (variation to lot size)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mrs J M Kehlet

Owner:                    Mrs J M Kehlet

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Notification not required

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to strata subdivide the approved attached dual occupancy.

 

The proposed allotments in area would be:

 

·      Lot 1: 384.5sqm

·      Lot 2: 400sqm

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Beauchamp Road in Matraville.  The site has dimensions of 16.08m/15.15m x 50.31m/50.38m with an overall site area of 784sqm.  Neighbouring the property to the east is a detached dual occupancy development in a battleaxe arrangment (not separately tenured). Further east, are smaller lots housing single dwellings sited along the western side of Eastern Road. To the west is a single dwelling. The surrounding area is residential in character consists a mixture of one and two storey dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy developments. See aerial photo on page 1.

 

Subject site

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were not required to be notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

Key Issues

 

1.     Minimum allotment size - subdivision

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Lot 1

Lot 2

Proposal

384.5m2

400 m2

Variation

15.5m2 below the development standard this equates to a 3.8% shortfall.

Complies

 

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

 

2.     Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The objectives of the minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in Zone R2 is set out in clause 4.1A of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(1)     The objective of this clause is to ensure that land to which this clause applies is not fragmented by subdivisions that would create additional dwelling entitlements

 

In addition, the objectives of Zone R2 are relevant to the proposed development and read as follows:

 

Objectives of zone R2:

 

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

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

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

·             To protect the amenity of residents.

·             To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The aims of the RLEP 2013 are also relevant and read as follows:

 

(2)   The particular aims of this Plan (RLEP 2013) are as follows:

 

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

(b)     to support a diverse local economy and business and employment opportunities for the community,

(c)      to support efficient use of land, vibrant centres, integration of land use and transport, and an appropriate mix of uses,

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

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

(f)      to facilitate sustainable population and housing growth,

(g)     to encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable and adaptable housing, that meets the needs of people of different ages and abilities in Randwick,

(h)     to promote the importance of ecological sustainability in the planning and development process,

(i)      to protect, enhance and promote the environmental qualities of Randwick,

(j)      to ensure the conservation of the environmental heritage, aesthetic and coastal character of Randwick,

(k)      to acknowledge and recognise the connection of Aboriginal people to the area and to protect, promote and facilitate the Aboriginal culture and heritage of Randwick,

(l)      to promote an equitable and inclusive social environment,

(m)    to promote opportunities for social, cultural and community activities.

 

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

 

Aims of the RLEP 2013:

 

Applicant’s comment: The proposal, being for the strata subdvision of an approved dual occupancy development on the site into two allotments, is not inconsistent with any of the above objectives.

 

Objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone:

 

Applicant’s comments: The proposal is considered to meet the relevant development objectives of the zone in that it provides for the development and strata subdvision of an efficient, sustainable and financially viable type of residential housing on the site in the form of an attached dual occupancy development, thereby contributing to greater housing affordability in the locality.

 

The proposal is for strata subdvision only of an approved dual occupancy development on the site and therefore, will not result in any adverse impacts upon the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties, in terms of overshadwoing, loss of privacy, noise, or visual bulk and scale.

 

Objectives and standards of Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in Zone R2:

 

Applicant’s comments

 

The proposed eastern lot 1 is 384.5sqm and western lot 2, 400sqm and one dwelling will be situated on each of the proposed strata lots. The proposed lot 1 represents a 15.5sqm or 3.8% variation from the min. 400sqm lot size standard.

 

The applicant’s written request in seeking to justify the contravention of the development standard is provided as follows:

 

Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or uneccessary in the circumstances of the case, for the following reasons:

 

a)  The size of the proposed eastern Lot 1, at 384.5sqm represents a 15.5sqm or 3.8% variation from the minimum 400sqm lot size development standard applying      under Clause 4.1A(4)(a) of the LEP. Strict compliance with this standard is   considered to be unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this case, for the following reasons:

b)  The proposed strata subdivision will not create additional dwelling entitlements over and above the two dwellings already approved for construction on the site under DA/396/2013.

c)  The combined area of the proposed Lots 1 & 2, at 784.5sqm corresponds to a variation by only 1.9% from the minimum total of 800sqm (at 400sqm per lot), the difference in the proposed lot sizes being due to the irregular, non rectangular, shape of the allotment.

d)  The proposed strata plan is consistent with the design and layout of the dual occupancy development approved for the site and will not affect the physical appearance of the approved development from the street or neighbouring residential properties in any way.

e)  Both the site and approved dual occupancy development readily comply with the minimum 450sqm lot size and minimum 15m lot frontage width development standards applying to attached dual occupancy development in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone.

f)   The approved and compliant provision for landscaping, private open space and on site car parking for each dwelling will remain unaltered by the proposed strata subdivision.

g)  The proposed minor departure by Lot 1, at 3.8% from the standard, will not create an undesirable precedent as each dwelling will be provided with compliance areas of private open space, landscaping and provision for on site parking.

h)  The proposed strata subdivision of the approved dual occupancy development will not have any bearing upon the rental potential or achievable rental yield of either or the approved dwellings, and therefore will have no negative impact upon housing affordability on the site or in the locality. The proposed strata subdivision will allow each of the dwellings to be either owner occupied or rented, providing appropriate flexibility of tenure. It can be argued that not allowing strata subdivision in this and similar cases limits general access to housing and housing affordability on the site and in the locality, due to the higher costs associated with the purchase of two dwellings on a single larger Torrens title allotment of land, which in turn places greater demand on the remaining available and more affordable housing supply.

i)   Strata subdivision is both a suitable and appropriate form of tenure for the approved dual occupancy development on the site.

j)   Thus, having regard to the objectives of the development standard and the objectives for development in the R2 Low Density Residential Zone, the proposal is considered to perform favourably on environmental planning grounds and is in the public interest.

k)  The proposed departure from the lot size development standard does not raise any matters of signficance for state or regional environmental planning, and there is no benefit to the public in requiring strict complaince with the development standard in this instance.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

 

In assessing the proposed variation against the objectives of Minimum Subdivision Lot size standard, the objectives of the zone R2 and aims of the RLEP, it is not considered that the submitted justification substantiates that compliance with the development standard (lot 1) is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

The objective of the clause for minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in Zone R2 is to ensure that land in the R2 zone is not fragmented by subdivisions that would create additional dwelling entitlements.

 

The proposed allotment size for one of the two proposed allotments, at 384.5 sqm, is a departure from the development standard of 400sqm. When considering this shortfall in the context of sites in the vicinity the proposed shortfall would not be consistent with the prevailing pattern of subdivision.

 

In this respect, a review of properties in the vicinity of the subject site, as shown in the cadastral image below shows a relatively consistent subdivsion pattern between the subject site (red) and those sites in the vicinity (blue). The salient statistical aspect of these surrounding properties is that over 90% of the surrounding allotments are below 800sqm and at least 44.7% of the properties have a site area that is within a 5% variance of the subject site. This would suggest that allowing the shortfall would encourage the subdivision of these other similarly sized allotments in the vicinity as well as the surrounding area. This would have the effect of fragmenting R2 zoned land through subdivision that creates separate entitlements. It is also important to consider that several of these sites also contain dual occupancies under one title only having been developed on the basis that minimum allotment size standards for subdivision were applicable.

 

In other words, should this application be supported with the substandard site area, even with the minor shortfall in the development standard it could set a precedent to create separate dwelling entitlements for other allotments that would fragment the land zoned R2 in the vicinity. 

 

 

Figure Cadastral: Subject site (shaded red), surrounding sites (shaded blue) including two sites that contain a strata title (shaded green).

 

The above cadastral also shows two strata subdivided dual occupancy developments (shaded green) at No. 66-66A Daunt Avenue and 2-2A Combles Parade. However, these were approved in 1995 and 1996 under a previous planning scheme.

 

From 1997, Council undertook the first of two reviews of the minimum allotment size standard for dwellings in low density zones setting the minimum allotment size standard at 450sqm for each allotment under the RLEP 1998.

 

Councils review in 2005 of the LEP and minimum allotment sizes for dwellings, further reduced the standard down to 400sqm, leading to a considered decision regarding the appropriateness of land sizes to accommodate low density dwellings that provide a minimum level of amenity to future residents, which includes such matters as access to reasonable private open space, solar access to living rooms and private open space, and setbacks and curtilage consistent with the low density zone.

 

In other words, the provisions for minimum allotment size since RLEP 1998 and up to the current LEP is the outcome of reviews of the previous planning instruments, reducing the minimum allotment size for the Low density zone from 450sqm to 400 sqm. A Report by the Director City Planning (No 42 of 2005) stated:

 

Investigation was carried out on the capability of the ensuing 450, 400 and 350sqm allotments (from 900, 800 and 700 respectively) for accommodating a single dwelling of appropriate modern standard. This shows that as the land size decreases it becomes harder to achieve two dwellings on 350sqm allotments with good design outcomes (for example, providing for the parking in the design, & the percentage of hard paved surfaces increase). The 400sqm allotment achieves two dwellings that are more acceptable. This scale of subdivision would be on average 10% smaller than the average subdivision patterns, thus generally not likely to adversely affect these patterns. Assessment indicates that the 400sqm allotments can accommodate a single dwelling closer to modern proportions whilst meeting the general requirements of good design, including streetscape impact and sufficient parking provision, whilst providing a slightly higher opportunity for subdivision in the low density residential areas. A reduction to 800sqm is also consistent with the original recommendations in the draft LEP 1998 report. Altering the minimum subdivision allotment size requires amendment to the Randwick LEP 1998.

 

The outcome of the review supporting reduction from 450sqm to a 400 sqm minimum allotment for accommodating a single dwelling which can meet general requirements of good design while still providing some opportunity for subdivision in the lower density residential areas is reflected in previous RLEP development standards for minimum allotment sizes and the current standard imposed under cl4.1A of the RLEP 2013. These development standards for minimum allotment sizes point to the broader context of the R2 zoned land and associated objectives that seek to protect the amenity of residents, housing affordability and to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment.

 

The applicant’s submission relies to a large extent on the approval by the Council of the built form of the approved dual occupancy (DA/396/2013), to establish that there is no need for further consideration of the requirement to protect the amenity of residents and to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment– key objectives of R2 zone land.

 

In response to this argument, it is considered that subdivision of the site into two allotments raises different issues to consideration of the built form of the two proposed dwellings. The allotment size, and consequent potential differences in tenure for an attached dual occupancy, is relevant to assessment of whether the proposal protects the amenity of residents and provides for the housing needs of the community within a low density environment. While the replacement of the pre-existing building with the approved attached dwellings would be more compatible with the lower density character of the locality, it is not considered that approval of the built form alone is sufficient to address the objective of protecting amenity such that this objective of the development standard is achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the minimum allotment size.

 

The 2005 review report noted (at p11) that under the then current provisions that  approximately 7,000 properties were able to develop attached dual occupancies (min 450sqm), however the restriction on strata subdivision had limited demand for this form of housing with 114 applications being considered in the previous five years.

 

The Report continued:

 

The subdivision (including strata subdivision) of attached dual occupancies is not permitted under the LEP. Any variation that permits strata subdivision of attached dual occupancy is likely to increase the number of attached dual occupancy development applications substantially, that is subdivision would encourage a greater proportion of these 4,500 properties to be developed (almost 30% of 2A (R2 zone equivalent) properties), as each dwelling can be sold separately in addition to renting or use by an extended family. The focus of this review is to provide reasonable opportunities for this housing type, where a high standard of design can be met and to continue the current focus on increasing density in areas that are most accessible to services and transport.

 

Having regard to the above, these decisions to restrict the allotment size in low density areas to promote better design outcome for dwellings at the same time, recognise that the there is a demand for housing in the form of attached or ancillary dwellings. This reasoning of Council is supported by the approach taken in State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (SEPP), which provides for the provision of additional dwellings on one parcel of land.  In so doing, the SEPP does not allow the separate titling of the second dwelling in low density areas. The decision to allow an ancillary dwelling, in the Council’s case attached dual occupancies, has been a well considered decision to allow another form of housing without fundamentally changing the character of an area by reducing the minimum allotment size for subdivision.  In this respect, an attached dual occupancy development under one-ownership would be more likely to be rented or occupied by an extended family, which would be consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone and aims of the LEP which include encouraging the provision of housing mix, tenure choice and affordability. It demonstrates the Council’s adherence to the development standard over an extended period of time.

 

There has been considerable investigation and strategic planning to amend the controls to reduce the subdivision lot sizes in order to achieve a desired level of local amenity as well as housing mix and choice. These reviews reflect a detailed understanding of the nature of development throughout the area and the integrity of the decisions being made about the form of development that the Council and the community expect.  The Council deliberated the questions of site area and form of subdivision at both the 1998 and 2005 reviews of the RLEP and made well considered decisions on the potential outcomes resulting from the proposed development standards. 

 

This application has the potential to result in adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties by providing for speculative development incentives for the subdivision of smaller sized lots potentially transforming the low density nature of the zone.

 

The approval of an allotment of land that does not meet the minimum allotment size in these circumstances would facilitate other similar subdivisions in the locality, and the precedent would undermine the objectives of protecting the amenity of residents, decrease housing choice and affordability which would be enhanced by adherence to the development standard.

 

It is considered that accepting the applicant’s argument would provide little justification for not upholding other exceptions to this development standard for other similarly sized land in the R2 zone (both in the vicinity and in the broader context of R2 zoned land), which would be contrary to the planning policy developed during the course of the reviews of the LEP, and consequently create an adverse planning precedent in Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 at [79].

 

Overall, having regard to the abovementioned objectives, the exception to the development standard does not address the consistency of the proposed development with the objectives of the standard, the relevant aims and objectives of the RLEP and R2 zone low density zone and the objectives of the Act, and it is considered that applying the minimum allotment size standard to the proposed subdivision is reasonable and necessary.

 

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

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal does not achieve the planning objectives for the locality; it does not fit in with the subdivision layout and character of similar developments and is not considered to be representative of the most orderly use of the site.

 

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

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

 

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

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

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

·      The amenity of residents both in the vicinity and in the broader context of the R2 zone will be adversley affected by the development associated with the subdivision

 

·      The proposed separate tenure will cumulatively transform the character and density within the R2 zone in so far as the above-mentioned circumstances apply to other R2 zoned lots.

 

The proposed development is not considered to meet the objectives of the zone because it creates additional dwelling entitlements that would serve to both fragment the land to which it applies and creates the potential to transform the low density character of the area. It therefore does not satisfy the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential zone and will not be in the public interest.

 

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 refusal of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for minimum allotment size  in clause 4.1A of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the minimum lot size standard on this occasion is not considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

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

 

3.     Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

 

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

 

Section 2.1 Minimum lot size and frontage

The proposed development is subject to the following DCP objective:

 

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

 

The approved develompent was subject to a 15m minimum lot frontage control for the attached dual occupancy and the approved development was considered suitable for the site in so far as it enabled dwellings of adequate dimensions, configuration and amenity performance. In addition, the overall frontage is also generally consistent with the frontage widths of other allotment frontages in the vicinity that contain attached dual occuapancy developments (under single tenure). Notwithstanding, the proposed strata subdivision would create additional dwelling entitlements that would fragment the land and will not respect the predominant subdivision pattern of the locality.

 

I would also encourage the speculative development of these lots and creates the potential to transform the character of locality.

 

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 strata subdivision is permissible with development consent under Randwick LEP 2013. The proposed subdivision of lot 1 does not comply with the minimum allotment size required under Clause 4.1(a) of the RLEP and lower than the average allotment sizes within the locality.

 

The exception to the development standard lodged with respect to the non-compliance with the minimum allotment size of 400sqm is not considered to be well founded in the circumstances and a well founded case has not been made by the applicant to indicate why compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary as required by Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2013.

 

The proposal has been assessed having regard to the provisions of section 79C of the EP&A Act, the Regulations and relevant environmental planning instruments and policies as discussed in the body of this report. The strata subdivision is considered to be contrary to the objectives of the standard, the low density character of the R2 zone and the aims of the RLEP as it discourages the mix of housing, it will fragment land by subdivision creating additional dwelling entitlements, it not protect the amenity of residents in the R2 zoned land and it will be inconsistent with the existing pattern of subdivision in the locality.

          

It is recommended that Council refuse the application.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council does not support the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.1(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in Zone R2, on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the above clause, and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     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. 14/2015 for strata subdivision, at No. 275 Beauchamp Road, Matraville, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with aims of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it discourages the provision of affordable housing options.

 

2.     The proposed subdivision does not comply with Clause 4.1(A) minimum allotment size standard under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposed Lot 1 will fragment the land by subdvision that would create additional dwelling entitlements and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

3.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2 zone under RLEP 2012 in that it will not encourage housing affordable or protect the amenity of residents.

 

4.     The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the objective under Section 2.1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed strata subdivision does not respect the predominant subdivision pattern of the locality.

 

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:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D8/15

 

 

Subject:                  2 Byron Street, Coogee (DA/24/2008/A)

Folder No:               DA/24/2008/A

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification to amend condition 3 to allow for a maximum of 90 children at the child care centre.

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Rowan Hookway

Owner:                    Phillip Vannan

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview26221.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

This application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original development application was determined at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 22 July 2008.

1.       Proposal

 

The original application sought approval for 90 place child care centre which was reduced to 60 places to provide an appropriate level of amenity and safety. The issues related to the reduction in child care places have been addressed in the modified proposal.

 

The applicant is seeking to modify the development consent to allow for a maximum of 90 children at the child care centre by amending condition no. 3 of the original consent which restricts the number of children permitted in the centre to 60.  The condition reads as follows:

 

3.   The maximum number of child places permitted for the centre is 60.

 

2.       The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site, located within Lot 1482 in DP 752011, No. 2 Byron Street, Coogee has a frontage of approximately 42.3m to Carr Street. The site has a depth of 42.6 metres and a width of 42.3 metres and a total site area of 1790m2.

 

The site is located on a triangular block that is bounded by Carr Street to the north, Dudley Street to the south-west and Byron Street to the east. 

 

The site of the child care centre forms the western extent of the Coogee Diggers club at 2 Byron Street, with pedestrian access from Carr Street.  Council provided the child care centre with a new address and is now known as 2A Carr Street, Coogee.

 

Built form in the locality is primarily characterised by residential flat buildings of varying scales and also some detached dwelling houses, club facilities and the local primary school.  The nearest residential housing to the site is two apartment buildings occupying both corners of Melody Street and Carr Street and located approximately 30 metres away.

 

Directly east of the subject site is the Coogee Randwick RSL club and its associated facilities.  Directly to the south and west of the subject site is Baker Park.

 

Coogee Public School is located to the northeast of the subject site on Byron Street.  

 

Image 1: Subject Site

 

 

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. Seven (7) submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

25 Byron Street, Coogee

41 Byron Street, Coogee

2/9A Carr Street, Coogee

92 melody Street, Coogee

Unit 5, 90 Melody Street, Coogee

24 Dudley Street, Randwick

18 Sully Street, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

Parking, traffic & safety impacts

 

·      Loss of street parking for residents and visitors from increasing demands on limited parking resources.

 

·   The proposal does not meet the parking controls in the Randwick DCP 2013 and RTA guidelines.

 

·   Increased traffic congestion, parking problems and pedestrian safety concerns due to drop off and pick up.

 

·   Extension of this facility will result in access and safety concerns. The topography of Carr Street, particularly the location of the childcare centre and nearby on-street parking close to the crest of a large hill will result in additional safety risk. Visibility issues associated with entry and exit of Melody Street.

 

·   Illegal parking practice creates significant problems for residents of Melody Street as visibility is significantly reduced.

 

·   Breach of existing traffic regulations by irresponsible parking practices is a clear indicator that there is not enough parking available for the existing users of the child care facility, let alone to accommodate a 50% increase in capacity.

 

·   Already impacted by the 10min parking restriction on Carr Street due to the approved childcare centre; the increase of children to the centre will further impact on the parking demands within the area.

 

·   The parking along Dudley Street is negatively affected by the number of boats, trails, etc. which park along the key portion of Dudley Street close to the childcare centre.

 

A comprehensive traffic and parking assessment was carried out by Council’s Development Engineers who concluded that the additional traffic demand generated by the modified development and the shortfall of onsite car parking spaces can be safely accommodated along Carr street and adjoining streets.

 

No objection has been raised by Council’s Development Engineer and Manager Integrated Transport in respect of the increase in vehicle movements generated by the proposal.  It is considered that the increase in traffic generated can be accommodated safely by the road system and will not adversely impact on the environmental traffic capacity of the locality.

 

Refer to Part B7 – Transport, Traffic, parking and access and detailed assessment made by Council’s Development Engineers.

 

Limited outdoor space

The centre is too small to accommodate 90 children and has limited outdoor space.

 

The increase in child numbers will be accommodated in the existing building and outdoor play areas which was originally designed to accommodate 90 children.  In addition, approval will be required from the children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and the Children (Education and Care Services) Supplementary Provisions Regulation 2004 from the NSW Department of Education and Communities to ensure the play area can safely accommodate the number of children proposed.

 

DA should be lodged

The objector at no. 25 Byron Street believes the application should be lodged as a DA and not a Section 96 application given the major change to the original conditions of approval.

 

The original application sought approval for 90 place child care centre which was reduced to 60 places via a condition.

 

The applicant is seeking to modify condition 3 which limited the number of children from 90 to 60 in the original consent.  The application is considered to be substantially the same development as originally approved as the increase in the number of children does not alter the essence of the development and the impacts from the intensification of the use are not significant.

 

LEP 2012

The proposed scale of the development and suitability of the site to support the 90 place centre is inconsistent with the zone objectives.

 

The proposed modifications are permissible within the current zoning controls.  The modifications will also satisfy the provisions of the relevant environmental planning instruments and will continue to generally meet the controls of the Child Care Centre Policy in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

Potential impacts of noise, parking and traffic were assessed by Council’s technical officers in the original consent and the noise & parking impacts implications associated with this modification has also been reviewed and are considered to be acceptable.

 

It is concluded that, the changes to the approved use and intensity can be reasonably accommodated within the area, subject to suitable conditions and recommendations made by the updated acoustic report and plan of management without resulting in unacceptable amenity impacts to neighbouring properties.

 

Randwick DCP 2013

The application fails to address the relevant matters for consideration in Section 79 (C), particularly Part D11 Child Care Centres in the Randwick DCP 2013 which cover traffic, parking and pedestrian safety and amenity.  

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed against the relevant sections in Part D11 of the DCP.  The modifications are considered to satisfy the objectives of all the relevant development and design controls that are applicable to the site. Specific comments in relation to traffic & parking, noise and pedestrian safety and amenity are discussed below in the Key Issues section.

 

Environmental & Social Impacts

Whilst the childcare centre must be licensed by NSW Family Community Services, the application does not provide any assessment of how the centre will meet the minimum and relevant standards.

 

The application is not accompanied by a Social Impact Assessment and Council has not pursued this requirement.

 

Council’s Social Impact Assessment Guidelines 2006, outline a SIA may be requested in the instance of a number of indicative development types, at the discretion of Council. These development types are generally high impact and of high capacity, including licensed premises, brothels and industrial premises of substantial size. Child care centre uses are not listed within the guidelines for development that typically requires submission of a SIA, nor is the intensity of the proposed operation considered to introduce this need.

 

The predominant concerns expressed in submission as necessitating a SIA relate to the potential for traffic, parking, safety and noise from the increasing in number of children to the existing use, in additional to general compatibility with the residential area. With specific regard to these concerns, Council’s Integrated Transport, Development Engineering and Environmental Health Units have all reviewed the application. Each has provided detailed comments, advising that in the residential context of the site, the proposed modifications are suitable for endorsement, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.

 

The scale and likely impacts associated with the modifications are not considered to eventuate in substantial adverse social impact upon the locality. The application does not necessitate submission of a Social Impact Assessment.

 

4.       Key Issues

 

4.1   Section 96 Assessment

Section 96 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 proposed modification is of minimal environmental impact, and

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

(c)   it has notified the application

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

 

The proposal does not involve any significant changes to the approved built form, floor space ratio or use of the site. The original application sought approval for 90 place child care centre which was reduced to 60 places via a condition.

 

The applicant is seeking to modify condition 3 which limited the number of children from 90 to 60 in the original consent. The application is considered to be substantially the same development as originally approved as the increase in the number of children does not alter the essence of the originally approved development and the impacts from the intensification of the use are not significant.  As such, it can be assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

 

4.2   Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

Zone RE1 - Public Recreation

The site is zoned RE1- Public Recreation under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed modifications are permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposed Child Care Centre will continue to integrate with, and support the primary function of the zone to enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes, to provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses, to protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes and to protect, manage and restore areas with high biodiversity, ecological and aesthetic values, including buffer areas and habitat corridors.

 

The proposed modifications, subject to conditions will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining residents and nearby residential zones; and will continue to provide a facility for the local community where there is a demand/need for child care centres. 

 

Overall, the proposal is not considered to detract from the general aims and zoning objectives stated in the Randwick LEP.

 

4.3     Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

Part B7 – Transport, Traffic, parking and access

The assessment is based on the additional parking and traffic demands generated by the addition of 30 children.  Based on the information provided by the applicant in relation to the various age groups the staff/child ratio requirements under the Childcare Regulations 2014 is that a minimum of 6 new staff members be provided for the additional 30 children.

 

The original development was approved with 60 children with a pickup-& drop off zone provided kerbside in Carr Street. The pickup and drop off zone was sized to accommodate 15 spaces which were based on the RMS rate of 1 space per 4 children.

 

Since the assessment of the original application, Council’s requirements in relation to the pickup and drop-off zones have been amended with the implementation of the new DCP in 2013.

 

Council’s comprehensive DCP 2013 Part B7 specifies that parking be provided for childcare centres at the rate of 1 space per two staff plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop of children.

 

If the existing 60 place childcare centre is assessed under Part B7 of Council’s current DCP the pick-up and Drop-off parking provision are 7.5 spaces. 

 

The proposed development for 90 places would generate a parking provision of 11.25 for pick-up and drop-off.

 

Therefore, the proposed development consisting of 30 children and 6 staff will require 3.75 (or say 4) additional car spaces for pickup and drop off and 3 additional car spaces for staff members.

 

No additional parking is provided on the site and therefore, the proposal relies on the availability of on-street parking to satisfy this demand.

 

The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Assessment which assesses the impacts of the proposal on the availability of on-street parking. The parking and traffic study has modeled the projected parking demand associated with the expanded childcare centre and combined it with the observed non-childcare uses. The assessment concludes the existing 15 spaces for pickup & drop off zone can accommodate the additional parking demand and this was supported by Councils’ Development Engineers. However, a stricter enforcement of the 10 minute timed zone is recommended to ensure a satisfactory turnover of spaces.  This would be a matter for Council Rangers to ensure compliance which was enforced in the original consent.  Whilst concerns were raised in relation to the shortfall of 3 staff parking spaces by Council’s Development Engineers they have indicated the proximity of good public transport does mitigate these impacts to a degree and if the lack of 3 staff parking spaces is the only outstanding issue, it is unlikely to be sufficient grounds for refusal of the application.

 

In addition, it is considered that a departure from on-site parking requirements could be supported in this instance due to the location of the subject site in relation to public transport.  The site is well serviced by buses.  Two sheltered bus stops are located adjacent to the proposed entrance to the child care centre.  Buses that serve these stops include 373 to the City, 372 to Railway Square and 314 and 313 to Bondi Junction.

 

A detailed assessment was made by Council’s Development Engineers and has concluded that the shortfall of car parking spaces on the site is acceptable and will not unreasonably impact on the environmental traffic capacity of the locality.  However, it is recommended that a condition be placed in any Section 96 consent requiring a clause be placed in an updated Plan of Management to encourage employees to share their journey to work and/or use sustainability transport options.  Refer to detailed assessment made by Council’s Development Engineers below.

 

Development Engineers Referral comments

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers. The following comments have been provided:

 

A Section 96(2) application has been received which seeks to modify the approved childcare centre by amending condition 3 to allow for a maximum of 90 children at the above site.

 

Original Consent: Construction of single storey child care facility on bowling green of Coogee Randwick RSL Club, catering for 60 children with hours of operation being 7am-7pm Monday-Friday and use as a child minding facility for 10 children between 8am-2pm Saturday & Sunday for club patrons, & associated site works.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Smyth Planning dated July 2014.

·      Plan stamped by Council 8th August 2011

 

Traffic & Parking Comments

 

TRAFFIC COMMENTS

Using the rates and time peaks provided in Part 3.11.3 of RMS document ‘Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’ the proposed increase in childcare numbers from 60 to 90 will generate the following additional traffic trips when applied to the subject site.

 

Time                                               Number of Trips

7:00-9:00am                                    0.8 x 30 = 24

2:30-4:00pm                                   0.3 x 30 = 9

4:00-7:00 pm                                  0.7 x 30 = 21

 

This indicates that the proposed 30 place increase in child numbers will generate an additional 54 vehicle trips per day. This only represents an approximate 0.8% increase on traffic volumes in Carr Street based on the most recent traffic count data (2012).

 

The increase will unlikely be noticeable to observers and it is considered the road system can accommodate such an increase.

 

PARKING COMMENTS- PICKUP AND DROP-OFF ZONE

The original development was approved with 60 children with a pickup-& drop off zone provided kerbside in Carr Street. The pickup and drop off zone was sized to accommodate 15 spaces which was based on the RMS rate of 1 space per 4 children.

 

Since the assessment of the original application, Council’s requirements in relation to the pickup and drop-off zones have been amended with the implementation of the new DCP in 2013. Parking for pickup and drop-off is now required to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 8 children. This change was based on actual surveys of childcare centres at various locations within Randwick LGA and is considered to give a more realistic estimation of parking demand. This is also evident on the subject site as demonstrated below.

 

Existing Development for 60 places

For the existing 60 place childcare centre Part B7 of Council’s new DCP would now require the following parking provision for pickup and drop-off

 

Pick-up and Drop-off parking required   = 60/8 = 7.5 = say 8 spaces

 

This is consistent with observed parking survey data provided in the submitted traffic report by Traffix which reported a peak parking demand of 7 spaces associated with the childcare centre within the existing 10 minute restricted zone at 8:15am.

 

Non childcare uses also use the 10min zone however (including many motorists who illegally overstay the time restriction) which when combined with the childcare patrons result in a peak parking demand of 13 spaces at 8:45am for the morning peak and 12 spaces for the afternoon peak at 5:45pm. This is generally consistent with observations made by the Development Engineer who observed similar numbers upon site inspection on the 28th October 2014 at 4:24 pm (see photos below) and the morning peak on the 29th October 2014 between 7:30am and 9:00am.

 

      

Pickup & Drop off Zone East 4:24pm          Pickup & Drop off Zone Central 4:24pm

 

Pickup & Drop off Zone West 4:24pm

 

The photos above indicate that 11 spaces were occupied within the pickup and drop-off zone which was the peak demand observed between 4:00pm and 5:00pm on Tuesday 28th October 2014. A peak demand of 8 spaces was observed during the 7:00-9:00am peak on 29th October 2014. The existing 15 space drop-off pickup and drop-off zone therefore appears to be operating well and there is scope for some additional capacity.

 


Proposed Development for 90 places

The proposed development for 90 places would require the following parking provision for pick-up and drop-off

 

Pick-up and Drop-off parking required   = 90/8 = 11.25 = say 11 spaces

 

The parking and traffic study has modeled the projected parking demand associated with the expanded childcare centre and combined it with the observed non-childcare uses. It has concluded that the existing 15 space pickup & drop off zone op-off zone can accommodate the additional parking demand although it indicates the zone will reach capacity (15 spaces) at 8:45am for the morning peak and near capacity (14 spaces) in the afternoon peak at 5:45pm.

 

Based on the traffic and parking assessment and site inspections by the Development Engineer, it is considered the existing pick-up and drop-off zone can accommodate the additional parking demand generated by the expanded childcare centre. Stricter Council enforcement of the time restrictions would likely result in more spaces becoming available as there currently appears to be many over-stayers.

 

PARKING COMMENTS- STAFF PARKING

Childcare Regulations 2014 currently require the following Staff/child ratios

0-2 age 1 per 4

2-3 age 1 per 5  

3-5 age 1 per 10

 

The SEE states that the increase in child numbers from 60 to 90 will comprise of the following increases in the various age groups. The associated staff increases have been calculated by the Development Engineer

 

0-2 age group 8 more places (2 additional staff required)

2-3 age group 16 more places (3.2 additional staff required)

3-5 age group 6 more places (0.6- staff required)

 

A minimum of 6 new staff are therefore required for the additional 30 child places proposed.

 

Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 requires staff parking for childcare centres to be provided at the rate of 1 space per 2 staff which would require 3 additional carspaces when applied to the subject site. This has not been provided and so the proposal will be relying on the availability of on-street parking to satisfy this demand.

 

Development Engineering generally requires that staff parking be provided off-street and is reluctant to support burdening the surrounding street network with additional parking demand for what is essentially a business operation. The site is located in an area that experiences a relatively high demand for on-street parking due to Coogee Diggers Club who also does not provide any off-street parking. There are also many residents in the area that do not have access to off-street parking and rely heavily on street parking to store their private vehicles

 

The parking survey undertaken by Traffix does not specifically comment in detail on staff parking demand but does demonstrate that some on-street parking is available in the vicinity with a minimum of 47 and a maximum of 75 spaces available within the surveyed areas indicated in the parking study. It should be noted however that the streets immediately surrounding the childcare centre (Dudley, Byron & Carr Streets) are approaching capacity according to the submitted parking survey data. Indeed at the time of site inspection (4:30pm Tuesday 28th October) only 3 spaces were observed to be available in all 3 streets (not counting the drop-off zone). The potential impact on these streets is of concern as they are likely be parked out as a result of the expanded centre.

 

Public Transport.

It is acknowledged the site is close to public transport with Carr Street being a major bus route between Coogee and the City (Routes 372,373) and Bondi Junction (Route 314) with typical frequencies of 5-10 minutes during peak times and 20-30 minutes off-peak. This is of main benefit to staff as it has been observed that most parents & cares drop-off their children by motor vehicle. This may assist in mitigating some of the parking impacts created by the additional 6 staff, however to assist further, it is recommended that a clause be placed in an updated Plan of Management to encourage employees to share their journey to work or use sustainability transport options.

 

CONCLUSION

It is likely that parking demands associated with the additional staff required may impact on the availability of on-street parking in the immediate vicinity (especially Carr, Dudley and Byron Streets)

 

These impacts have not been acknowledged or quantified in the Traffic and Parking Assessment by Traffix and the shortfall of staff parking is of concern to Development Engineering. The proximity of good public transport does mitigate these impacts to a degree and if the lack of 3 staff parking spaces is the only outstanding issue, it is unlikely to be sufficient grounds for refusal of the application.

 

The existing 15 space pick-up and drop-off zone on Carr Street will be sufficient to accommodate the expanded childcare centre of 90 places under Council’s DCP 2013. A stricter enforcement of the 10 minute timed zone is recommended however to ensure a satisfactory turnover of spaces. This would be a matter for Council Rangers.

 

Development Engineering raises no objection to amending condition 3 to allow for a maximum of 90 children at the above site. It is recommended however that a condition be placed in any S96 consent requiring a clause be placed in an updated Plan of Management to encourage employees to share their journey to work and/or use sustainability transport options.

 

Should the Section 96 application be approved there are no engineering conditions required to be added, amended or deleted.

 

Part D11 – Child Care Centres

The proposed modifications have been assessed against Part D11 of the DCP and are considered to satisfy the objectives of all the relevant development and design controls that are applicable to the site. Where applicable to the proposed amendments specific comments in relation to the DCP are discussed below.

 

Sub-clause 4.1 - Acoustic Amenity and Privacy

Potential impacts of noise associated with the increase in number of children have been investigated by Council’s Environmental Health department. The noise expected to arise from the proposed modifications is capable of complying with the provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1999 and Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report and appropriate operational management of the centre.

 

It is recommended by Council’s Environmental officer that a condition be included requiring an acoustic validation assessment be undertaken three months after occupation to confirm the operation of the childcare centre is operating in accordance with the requirements of the amended acoustic reports supporting the development application.  It is also recommended that music will not be played in outdoor areas and a condition of consent to that effect be included with any consent.

 

The centre has no adjoining/abutting residential premises and is quite a fair distance away from the nearest effected residential property. Therefore, the increasing in number of children and intensity can be reasonably accommodated within the area, subject to suitable conditions, updated plan of management and updated recommendations made by acoustic consultant without resulting in unacceptable amenity impacts to surrounding properties. These noise concerns are discussed further by Council’s Environmental Health officer comments below.

 

Environmental health referral comments:

Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services provided comment on a number of issues relating to the proposed modifications:

 

Noise Concerns:

A site inspection was undertaken on 27 October 2014. The environmental health team raised concerns regarding the noise generated from the external play areas and the general operations emanating from the proposed development.

 

Additional information was requested on the 27th October 2014 regarding:

 

·      Noise generated from 90 children using the childcare centre, outdoor play areas that includes consideration of different types of activities.

 

·      Noise generated from increase traffic from the operation of the centre.

 

·      Details of how the children will be managed within the childcare centre and in particular outdoor areas (to be provided by the applicant and incorporated within the Plan of Management but considered by the acoustic consultant)

 

An additional acoustic report prepared by Acouras Consultancy dated 31 October 2014 Doc Reference SYD2013-1023—R004C was provided to Council.

 

The information provided advised the following;

 

·      Noise impacts from the proposed number of 40 children in the outdoor areas between the hours of 7.00am to 6.00pm and reduced number of 20 children between 6.00pm to 7.00pm are confirmed to comply with relevant noise criteria.

·      The required acoustic operational requirements have been incorporated into an amended plan of management and have been reviewed by the acoustic consultant.

·      Noise impacts from site related traffic on public roads have been confirmed as complying with relevant acoustic criteria.

·      It will be recommended that music will not be played in outdoor areas and a condition of consent to that effect should be included.

 

With regards to noise, after reviewing the acoustic reports and statements provided by the acoustic consultant, it is considered that the proposed development will comply with the relevant noise criteria pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report and appropriate operational management of the centre.

 

It is noted that the current centre has no adjoining/abutting residential premises and there are quite reasonable distances to the nearest effected residential receivers. Also the most intensive operational times occur during the daytime and are during the weekdays.

 

It is recommended that an acoustic validation assessment is undertaken three months after occupation to confirm the operation of the childcare centre is operating in accordance with the requirements of the acoustic reports supporting the development application.

 

Sub-clause 4.2 - Safety and Security

Concerns in the submissions were raised in relation to pedestrian safety during the heavy pick up and drop off periods.

 

In terms of the safety aspects of the pickup/drop off area reference is made to a recent case heard in the Land and Environment Court (The Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust v Woollahra Municipal Council), where the Senior Commissioner dismissed the appeal based on the failure of parents to observe safe behaviours during the drop off and pickup times. Whilst the current modification is for the increase of children to the established child care centre, there is nothing to suggest that the existing drop off/pickup arrangements on Carr Street would lead to a similar scenario, especially given that the size and operation of the drop off/pickup area will adequately deal with the demand generated and provides a safe and convenient access to the child care centre.

 

Overall, Traffic and parking issues has been the subject of assessment by both Councils Development Engineers and Integrated Transport Unit. The outcome of these considerations is that appropriate management conditions of consent can effectively mitigate any potential traffic and parking impacts from the childcare centre and that they will adequately meet the relevant objectives of the Comprehensive DCP with regard to parking, traffic and access and safety issues around the site and within the surrounding area.

 

The increase in child numbers will be accommodated in the existing building which was originally designed to safely accommodate 90 children.  The main pedestrian entry access to the centre is from Carr Street.  This entrance was assessed to be acceptable in the original consent. 

 

The plan of management for the child care centre has been updated to safely manage and accommodate the extra number of children.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

 

Direction 2a:     Enrich our range of community services that meet our community’s needs.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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.

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed as being satisfactory with respect to the relevant provisions of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Comprehensive DCP 2013. The issues raised by the neighbouring residents have been addressed within the body of this report.

 

Potential noise & parking/traffic impacts resulting from the proposed modifications to the child care centre have been assessed and subject to recommended conditions made by Council’s Environmental Health department, should not result in any unreasonable environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality.  Hence, the modifications are recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify approved Development Application No. DA/24/2008/A to amend condition 3 to allow for a maximum of 90 children at the child care centre at No. 2 Byron Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

Amend Condition No.’s 1 & 3 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans prepared by Robertson and Marks, project number 6556, being Rev A drawings numbered DA01 to DA11 consecutively, dated as received by Council 21 January 2008, the application form and any supporting information received with the application, except as amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation received by Council on 21 July 2014 & 31 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.

Condition No. 3 is amended to read:

 

Environmental Amenity

3.       The childcare centre indoor and outdoor areas shall not exceed a maximum number of 90 children at any one time and the children numbers shall be managed in accordance with the approved plan of management.

 

The following conditions are added:

85.     A validation report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics three (3) months after the business commences the use of the premises with 90 children and from time to time as reasonably requested by Council. The report should demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent.

 

The report is to be forwarded to and approved by Council. This report must address (but not limited to) the accumulation effect of mechanical plant and equipment and noise generated from children in the outdoor play areas. Any recommendations outlined in the acoustic report are to be implemented in accordance with the report.

 

86.     Music is not to be played in the outdoor play areas at any time.

 

87.     The operation of the child care centre shall be in accordance with the Plan of Management dated 29 October 2014 titled proposed childcare centre “ Coogee Diggers 2 Byron Street Coogee “unless otherwise stated by this development consent.

 

GENERAL ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and requirements.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

A4      The applicant and operator are also advised to engage the services of a suitably qualified and experienced Acoustic consultant, prior to finalising the design and construction of the development, to ensure that the relevant noise criteria and conditions of consent can be fully satisfied.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D9/15

 

 

Subject:                  18 Randwick Street, Randwick (DA/373/2014)

Folder No:               DA/373/2014

Author:                    Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including a variation to the maximum height control

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Grayem Forrest Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Grayem Forrest Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview22414.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 involves a request for an exception to the height of buildings development standard by greater than 10%.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the dwelling including a new dormer window to the front of the dwelling, and alterations and additions to the rear of the dwelling to provide for new bedrooms, living areas and bathrooms, with a new deck off the rear of the dwelling. The proposal as originally lodged has been amended to address issues addressed by Council’s consultant Heritage Planner with respect to maintaining the cohesion of the contributory significance of the pair of dwellings at 18 and 20 Randwick Street.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the western side of Randwick Street and has a frontage of 7.465m, depth of up to 28.23m and an area of 230m². The site falls from the front to rear with a fall of up to 1.94m.

 

The site is within the Gordon Square Conservation area.

 

Existing street view of No.s 16, 18 & 20 Randwick Street

 

Exception to Development Standard

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)      The consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

The existing building is a two storey terrace style dwelling and has an existing building height of 11m to the top of the roof, excluding the chimney.

 

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 application details that the new portion of the building has a building height of 11m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Building Height

Proposal

11m

Existing

11m

LEP development standard

9.5

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

15.8% excess (1500mm)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

a)     A small part of the design does not comply with the maximum height control, the top 1.5m of the proposed attic addition, the front and rear dormers exceeds the requirement.

       

b)     The development directly references the immediate neighbour, the adjoining terrace, in both form and height and reinforces the two houses as a pair in the streetscape, further emphasizing their contribution to the heritage conservation area.

 

c)     The streetscape character retained both in form and in relation to key elements, verandah, ironwork, doors and windows maintaining the properties scale and character as a contributory building in the conservation area.

 

d)     Both front and rear dormers ensure the existing original roof form is retained and, both set in from the side walls, readily distinguished.

 

e)     The rear dormer is located well back from the rear of the property and will be seen as distant where visible from Sydney Street and neighbouring properties, with no loss of amenity for neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

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

 

The height of the dormers is in line with the existing height of the dwelling and the adjoining terrace.

 

There will not be any significant adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the overall streetscape by the non complying building height as a result of the inclusion of the new dormer windows.

 

The non complying building height is only at the dormer portion of the roof and not to the whole extent of the roof form.

 

It therefore cannot be argued that concurrence to this variation is in conflict with the objectives of the standard as the resultant building height will not result in any unreasonable impact to the amenity of the local residents because the building height remains consistent with the existing and adjoining building and will not detract from any desirable elements within the existing streetscape or the significance of the conservation area.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that allowing for a departure from the building height would not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposal in its current form will be in the public interest as it will remain consistent with the objectives of the building height standard and the zoning objectives.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

 

•     To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Issue

Comment

20 Randwick Street Randwick

 

-The application does not include the consent of the adjoining owners for the lodgement of the application because of the shared party wall between the two properties.

 

-Detailed information has not been provided with respect to the construction work to the party wall and any fire rating.

 

 

 

-Information as to how the new roof and structures will be supported have not been provided with the application.

 

 

-Detailed information has not been provided as to how the two roofs connect along the boundary.

 

 

-Elevational shadow diagrams have not been provided with the application.

 

-Justification of the proposed non complying height control has not been correctly done in that a Clause 4.6 Objection to the LEP standard has not been provided.

 

-The design of the off set box like contemporary additions are inconsistent with the existing terrace row built form and the locality’s conservation area.

 

 

 

 

-A detailed schedule of external finishes has not been submitted.

 

-The proposal will have an unacceptable impact on their existing levels of solar access to the primary living rooms and private open space.

 

 

-A condition of consent should be imposed requiring all construction works and future internal performance of the dwelling to comply with the relevant noise performance and acoustic criteria of the Building Code of Australia and the relevant Australian Standards.

 

-A condition should be imposed to require a dilapidation report prior to release of a Construction Certificate.

 

-A construction management plan is necessary as a condition of consent.

 

 

 

-There are concerns with respect to the removal of asbestos.

 

 

 

 

20 Randwick Street Randwick (2nd submission after amended plans received)

 

-The proposed rear addition do not in any way maintain or improve symmetry between 18 and 20 Randwick Street or positively contribute to the built form and character of the conservation area.

 

 

 

-The proposed off set box like contemporary rear additions are readily visible from the public domain rather than being a recessive built form or maintaining the symmetry of the adjoining terrace at 20 Randwick Street.

 

 

 

-The justification for the rear building line is flawed as it is based on the building being consistent with the adjoining building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The off set box like design will be conspicuous and is out of character with the prevailing external material characteristics of the neighbouring properties and does not complement the design of the site’s existing traditional built form.

 

 

 

-The balcony at the rear attic level increases overlooking into the adjoining property and its principal areas of private open space.

 

 

 

 

-The poor quality design and excessive bulk and scale of the development will reduce and severely restrict levels of direct solar access at all critical times of the year.

 

-The locality is not undergoing change and has a strong and consistent low density residential dwelling house character befitting its conservation area status.

 

 

Owners consent from an adjoining owner is not required for works to a party wall as the consent only relates to works within the boundary of the subject property.

 

This is a matter that is addressed at the Construction Certificate application stage which requires consideration of the Building Code of Australia and structural support of the common wall.

 

This is a matter for the Construction Certificate application stage, and Council cannot require such details at the Development Application stage.

 

This is a matter for the Construction Certificate application stage, and Council cannot require such details at the Development Application stage.

 

Elevational diagrams have been provided with the application.

 

An application has been lodged by the applicant on the correct ‘Exception to a Development Standard, Clause 4.6 RLEP’ form.

 

 

The proposal has been considered by Council’s consultant Heritage Planner who has advised that whilst the alterations and additions are of a contemporary nature they will provide cohesion with the existing form in terms of mass scale and proportion.

 

This will be required by a condition of development consent.

 

The extent of additional overshadowing to the adjoining property does not reduce solar access to the north facing windows or private open space to less than the DCP control.

 

A condition of development consent requires compliance with the relevant sections of the Building Code of Australia.

 

 

 

 

 

This is required by a condition of consent.

 

 

 

A construction management plan is required to be lodged with the Construction Certificate as a condition of consent.

 

A condition of consent is included to require that any asbestos removal is to be carried out in accordance with Workcover requirements and Council’s Asbestos Policy.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposal has been considered by Council’s consultant Heritage Planner who has advised that whilst the alterations and additions are of a contemporary nature they will provide cohesion with the existing form in terms of mass scale and proportion.

 

The rear additions will be visible from the rear of the property and Sydney Street, however the primary streetscape setting of the subject and building in Randwick Street will be maintained and enhanced by the new dormer window which reinforces the symmetry pair of terrace style dwelling.  

 

The rear setback as nominated satisfies the objectives of the Randwick Development Control Plan, Part 3 setbacks in that the rear setback will ensure adequate separation between the neighbouring dwellings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access and will maintain an adequate area for private open space and deep soil planting.

 

The proposal has been considered by Council’s consultant Heritage Planner who has advised that the development satisfies the RDCP – Heritage, in that the development will not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form or massing of the existing buildings, and will complement the existing building in its scale, form and detailing.

 

The proposed balcony is consistent in dimensions to the rear upper level balcony at No.20. The balcony has blade wall to the southern side with a return across part of the rear face of the balcony which will prevent direct overlooking into the adjoining property.

 

The extent of additional overshadowing to the adjoining property does not reduce solar access to the north facing windows or private open space to less than the DCP control.

 

The development is consistent with the style of development to other existing dwellings in the conservation area.

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage

The proposal has been considered by Council’s consultant Heritage Planner as the subject site is within the Gordon Square Conservation Area. The subject and adjoining dwelling at 20 Randwick Street are on the north western corner of Randwick and Sydney Streets. The immediate locality contains varied styles and forms including a group of single storey Californian Bungalows to the north and several single storey semi detached cottages with upper storey additions to the west.

The pair of dwellings retain extensive original details and are contributory to the Conservation Area. The attached residence at 20 Randwick Street has been recently altered and extended to the rear and at attic level. The additions to that dwelling have maintained the form of a traditional rear service wing utilizing an inverted skillion roof form falling to a central gutter.

 

The proposal has been amended since originally being lodged and after discussions with Council’s consultant Heritage Planner and the amended plans which are the subject of this report now include an attic with a dormer to the street frontage, a large eyelid form dormer to the rear incorporating a small semi enclosed balcony and alterations and additions to the rear of the dwelling. The extent of the rear additions have also been reduced to align with the rear wing of 20 Randwick Street.

 

The proposal as amended satisfies the Randwick Development Control Plan – Heritage that requires where buildings are heritage items or contributory buildings that additions must not visually dominate or compete with or conceal the original roof form and massing of the existing building and the design of any proposed addition or alteration must complement the existing building in it’s scale, form and detailing.

 

Solar access

Due to the site orientation there will be unavoidable additional overshadowing to the adjoining property at 20 Randwick Street which is sited directly to the south of the subject property.

 

The resulting additional overshadowing to the adjoining property is illustrated on the accompanying shadow diagrams for the times at 8.00am, 12 midday and 4.00pm on the 21 June.

 

These demonstrate that the extent of additional overshadowing is not excessive as there will be no additional overshadowing to the private open space in the early morning period, at midday there is some additional overshadowing to the rear deck of the adjoining dwelling and in the later afternoon period there is no change to existing solar access to private living spaces and north facing window of that dwelling.

 

It is also noted that the majority of additional overshadowing as a result of the development is upon the roof of the subject and adjoining dwelling and not into private open space or north facing windows.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application to carryout alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 18 Randwick Street Randwick be approved.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings 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 & 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.373/2014 for alteration and additions to the existing dwelling at No. 18 Randwick Street, Randwick subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard condition

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   A privacy screen having a height of 1600mm above the floor level of the deck must be provided to southern side of the rear deck.  The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 18 Randwick Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D10/15

 

 

Subject:                  13 Cairo Street, Coogee (DA/731/2014)

Folder No:               DA/731/2014

Author:                    Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to dwelling

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Cape Cod Australia Pty Ltd

Owner:                    T Fogg & N Shaw

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview24000.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 involves a request for a variation to the height of buildings development standard by more than 10%.

 


Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a double garage and store to the eastern side of the dwelling, alterations and additions to the existing ground level including a new verandah and wrap around deck to the eastern and southern side of the dwelling and a new upper level containing four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a balcony with pergola above off the eastern side. The proposal will provide for 171m² of additional habitable floor area to the dwelling.

 

A previous Development Application DA/275/2014 was withdrawn due to the impact of the development upon the existing views from the properties to the rear.

 

The main issues are the impact of the development upon views from surrounding properties, impact upon privacy and the height of the building.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the southern side of Cairo Street and has a frontage of 20.115m, depth of 40.54m and an area of 815m². The site has a fall from the rear to the front and across the site from the west to east.

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of older style and contemporary two and three storey dwellings and some multi unit housing development. The site is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area.

 

Photo 1: Subject site

 

Exception to Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)      The consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Building height

The existing building is a single storey part two storey dwelling. 

 

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 application details alterations and additions to the dwelling including a new upper level which at the highest point equates to a building height of 10.6m.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Building Height

Proposal

10.6m

Existing

7.8m

LEP development standard

9.5m

Excess above or less than the LEP standard

11.5% excess (1.100mm)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

 

a)     The local area contains 3 and in some instances 4 storey dwellings as a result of the pronounced topography and the fact that previous planning controls in force up until February 2013 did not stipulate a maximum building height for dwellings.

 

b)     Given the site specific history, context and circumstances, approval of the variation sought based on the proposition that the development will actually be consistent with the surrounding developments will ensure that the objective of the LEP is met.

 

c)     The breach occurs only to the flat roofed pergola structure.

 

d)     A first floor addition to the existing dwelling with strict compliance with the control would either sterilise the ability to achieve any realistic, usable, sympathetic or suitably designed addition or would result in a development with an unsympathetic roof pitch.

 

e)     The visual bulk of the building with a FSR of 0.33:1 and site coverage of 33% is modest.

 

f)      With regards to privacy the upper floor component of the proposed development comprises bedrooms.

 

g)     e)     The proposal will not result in any overshadowing impacts and will maintain solar access to the adjoining properties in compliance with the DCP controls.

 

h)     The extent of departure is modest and from a planning perspective the proposal in itself creates no environmental planning impacts or issues for the adjoining properties or the streetscape.

 

i)      The proposal is in the public interest in that the development is an appropriately scaled residential development consistent with the desired character planned for R2 Low Density zoning irrespective of the non- compliance with Buildings Height.  

 

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

 

The area of non-complying building height is at the front north eastern corner of the building and the open pergola structure above the proposed first floor balcony only which is at the eastern side of the building and not to the actual whole roof form. It is also largely a function of the steep topography of the site rather than an inappropriate design. See plan below.

 

 

The building height non-compliance at that point of the building will also not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the streetscape or on adjoining properties with respect to overshadowing and view loss.

 

The pergola is a building element that is consistent with of dwellings in the immediate locality that include similar upper level balconies with pergolas or awnings for sun protection.  Notwithstanding the pergola and balcony is conditioned to be reduced to minimize view impacts.

 

The variation sought is not in conflict with the objectives of the standard as the building height will not result in any unreasonable impact to the amenity of the local residents remains consistent with the surrounding and adjoining buildings and will not detract from any desirable elements within the existing streetscape.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone 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.

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing residential environment and built form and would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submissions

 

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

 


 

Issue

Comment

3 & 3a Bloomfield Street South Coogee

 

-The proposal continues to go against the typical development in this area which adopt flat roofs as a means of reducing impacts to adjoining dwellings.

 

 

 

-The floor to ceiling height at 3m is excessive.

 

 

 

 

 

-The context of this part of South Coogee is an amphitheatre where dwellings cascade down the slope and the architectural language is to generally work with the slope. The numerical standards are a tool but not a means to an end, the appropriateness here lies with the consideration of adjoining dwellings both new and old.

 

-There are a number of neighbours who will have privacy and view loss mainly due to the pitched roof design that exacerbates the impact of this new structure.

 

-The proposal will result in the loss of significant scenic elements and landmarks including Clovelly Headland, Coogee Bay and Trennery Reserve. There are extensive views already however the loss of primary views has been reduced approximately by 40-50% since 1974.

 

-The proposed pitched roof of No.13 will not follow the topography of Cairo Street and will extend to a similar building height of No.11 which is not a reasonable interpretation of building design for sloping sites. The additional pergola over the top floor deck encroaches on the maximum permissible height and should be removed.

 

-No streetscape elevations have been presented to assess the proposed alterations and additions of No.13 in the context of its surroundings.

 

-The western setback for a three storey building is required to be 1800mm which the proposal does not comply with.

 

-In conclusion the application should not be approved in its current form and should be modified to include a flat roof, with floor levels to 2.7m to maintain views and achieve a concept of view sharing.

 

5 Bloomfield Street South Coogee

 

-There are concerns with regards to the impact that the development may have upon their privacy with regards to the overlooking of their property from the rear deck and upper level balcony which could be addressed by the inclusion of privacy screens.

 

-There are concerns with regards to privacy loss from the study, stairwell and bedroom 4 windows that could be addressed by obscured glazing or raised sill heights.

 

11 Cairo Street South Coogee

 

-Do not object but wish to be noted as persons with an interest and kept informed of any developments in relation to this DA and of any recommendations for or against this DA.

 

 

 

The use of flat or skillion style roofs are only one option, not a preferred or required option for roof forms to reduce impacts upon nearby and adjoining dwellings. See view loss assessment below.

 

The proposed ceiling height of 3m at ground level is a reduction in the current floor to ceiling height. Any further reduction is not required as the main significant view aspect is maintained. See view loss assessment below.

 

The proposal will have a height, bulk and scale that is appropriately distributed on the site and still satisfies the objectives of the RDCP with respect to building design.

 

 

 

 

 

See discussion in the Key Issues section below with respect to privacy and view impacts.

 

 

 

See detailed view loss assessment below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pitched roof is not dissimilar to the adjoining property at 15 Cairo Street. See the assessment of the overall building height in the Clause 4.6 discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

A streetscape analysis has been provided for consideration with the application.

 

 

 

The dwelling at its western point is two storeys.

 

 

See detailed view loss assessment below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See detailed privacy impact assessment in the Key Issues below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

See detailed privacy impact assessment in the Key Issues below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Noted.

 

Key Issues

 

Low Density Residential

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.

 

External wall height

The external wall height control in the RDCP operates in conjunction with the LEP control to ensure that the scale and mass of development complement the desirable streetscape character and achieve a suitable urban design outcome.

 

The proposed external wall height of the dwelling is up to 10.6m at the eastern side of the dwelling which exceeds the DCP control of 7m, or 8m for sloping sites. The objectives of the DCP seek to ensure;

 

-     development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character,

-     development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity,

-     ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

 

The subject site falls across the site from the west to east towards the coast with a fall of up to 6.5m. The point at which the dwelling does not satisfy the DCP control is at the eastern side of the dwelling towards the lowest point of the site and is where the new upper level is directly above the existing eastern end of the building, the ground floor addition extends past that point and incorporates the enlarged garage below.

 

In the context of the local streetscape the external wall height of the dwelling is not out of character with the nearby and adjoining dwellings which also reflect the topography of the locality with the sites falling from the west to east.

 

The resultant wall height will also not cause any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties with respect to overshadowing, view loss or visual amenity.

 

Therefore whilst the external wall height exceeds the DCP control, the height will still satisfy the relevant objectives of the DCP.

 

Visual Privacy from windows and balconies

The objectives of the RDCP with respect to visual privacy seek to ensure that developments minimise overlooking or cross viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

The controls of the RDCP include;

-     offsetting or staggering windows away from those of the adjacent buildings,

-     setting window sill heights at a minimum of 1600mm above the finished floor level,

-     Installing fixed and translucent glazing outside the windows in question,

-     orientating windows to living areas away from adjacent dwellings where possible,

-     focus upper floor balconies to the street or rear yard of the site, with any elevated balconies to the side having a narrow width to minimise privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

-     installing privacy screens to balconies, desks or terraces to mitigate the loss or privacy.

 

Overlooking from the front of the building, including the windows and the balcony that extends across the front of the building is straight across the roadway and the roofs of the lower properties towards the view to the north and east. See photo below. There is some overlooking upon the balcony of the adjoining dwelling, however that is to be expected where all of the dwellings on this side of the street have similarly located balconies to take advantage of the views.

 

Viewing to the east is upon the roof of the adjoining dwelling and not directly into the side windows of that dwelling as due to the difference in level between the two properties they are obscured by the existing dividing fence. See photo below.

 

 

Directly to the south east there is viewing into the outdoor living area and swimming pool, see photo below. A condition of consent is recommended to require the installation of a privacy screen along part of the eastern side of the ground level deck at the southern end where it allows for the overlooking of the adjoining properties private open space.

 

 

Directly to the south of the property there is some overlooking towards the property at rear No.5 Bloomfield Street, see photo below.

 

 

However as can been seen from the photo above there is also overlooking towards the subject property from the rear deck and outdoor living area of 5 Bloomfield Street.

 

The two following photos are taken from the rear of 5 Bloomfield Street, at the rear patio and the swimming pool deck which demonstrate the extent of overlooking into the subject property.

 

 

 

It is considered that the wrap around deck to the eastern and part southern side of the dwelling is not unreasonable in that it provides for direct access to the new swimming pool currently under construction and in comparison with the existing overlooking to and from the subject property to that behind at 5 Bloomfield Street the additional loss of privacy is minimal. 

 

Overlooking from the proposed new windows in the southern elevation are of no greater impact upon privacy than the existing situation from the windows in the southern elevation.

 

View sharing

Section 5.6 of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP, Low Density Residential, recognises that many dwellings within the Randwick City area enjoy views to the ocean, coastline, parks and distant CBD skyline, with some elements being recognized as prominent natural features, significant man made artefacts which carry scenic and iconic values.

 

The objectives of this section of the DCP seek to ensure that views from the public domain are protected and enhanced and that development is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

This concept of view loss has been defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

The Commissioner in deciding whether or not view sharing was reasonable adopted a four step assessment as follows.

 

a)    The value of the subject view ie water views are more valued than land views with iconic view such as the Opera House of North Head being more valued than views without icons and whole views are more valuable than partial views.

 

b)    From what part of the property are views obtained, for example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult to maintain than views from front and rear boundaries, and in addition whether or not the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position is also relevant, with sitting views being more difficult to protect. The expectation to retain side and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

c)    Assess the extent of the impact from the property as a whole rather than just for the view affected, the impact on views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas, then it is useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

d)    The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact and compliance with planning controls, with a development which satisfies planning controls being considered more reasonable than one that does not. 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 upon 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.

 

Having regard to principles and controls above, the impact on view loss to the neighboring property at 3 Bloomfield Street are assessed as follows.

 

a)       The views are towards the north and east and encompass extensive views of the ocean and the coastline of Coogee, Clovelly, Bronte and Bondi headlands to the north, and to the east the interface of the coastline of Trennery reserve and the ocean. See the below photo taken from a standing position at the rear patio area of 3 Bloomfield Street. Note the height poles and string lines installed by the applicant to indicate the extent of the proposed new roof at 13 Cairo Street.

 

 

b)       The views available from the adjoining property are obtained from the rear and eastern side of the property. The subject property at 13 Cairo Street is directly to the north of 3 Bloomfield Street. The photos below are taken from the rear of 3 Bloomfield Street from the inside of the dwelling, sitting in the rear sitting room, and standing at the rear of the dwelling and at the edge of the swimming pool deck surround. Also note that all photos include the height poles and string lines to indicate the extent of the proposed new roof form at 13 Cairo Street.

 

 

Photo taken from a standing position within the living room/dining area

 

Photo taken from a sitting position in the living room

 

 

Photo taken from a standing position in the rear living room

 

Photo taken from a standing position upon the swimming pool deck

 

Photo taken from the northern edge of the swimming pool deck

 

c)       The significant views from 3 Bloomfield Street are towards the north and east across the properties below in Cairo Street and include views of the ocean, and as noted above in section a) the coast and headlands of Coogee, Clovelly, Bronte and Bondi in the distance. The interface of the South Coogee cliff tops and Trennery Reserve are also visible. The views are available from both a standing and sitting position from the rear living areas, patio and swimming pool area.

 

The proposed development at 13 Cairo Street will maintain a significant portion of the view of the Ocean and all of the headland views of the beaches directly to the north from both standing and sitting positions within the dwelling and from the rear swimming pool and deck at 3 Bloomfield Street. The views of the interface of the coast at Trennery Reserve will be obscured directly to the north, however at the eastern most point will be maintained. See photo above.

 

In the context of the existing view and the impact of the development the view loss is considered to be moderate given that the majority of the view is maintained, especially the high amenity value view of the coastland and headlands to the north, all of which will be visible above the roof of the proposed development from the inside and outside living areas of 3 Bloomfield Street.  

 

d)  The proposed development consists of alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and is not a new development upon an existing allotment. The proposal other that the building height satisfies the relevant controls of the LEP and DCP. The non-complying building height does not significantly impact the existing views from the adjoining property as that portion of the building is the pergola which is an open structure and the primary high value view is across that point of the building. However, it is considered that a more skilful design which reduces the upper level balcony in depth whilst still providing a generous space would minimise the view impact.

 

Therefore on balance the extent of view loss is considered to be moderate and the objectives of Section 5.6 of the RDCP, View Sharing, are satisfied as the development will maintain a reasonable amount of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.  

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

That the application for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling be approved.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.3 (2) 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 & 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. 731/2014 for alterations and additions to the dwelling at 13 Cairo Street, Coogee subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     A privacy screen to a minimum height of 1600mm above the floor level of the deck is to be installed to the eastern side of the ground level deck for a distance of 6m measured from the rear corner of the deck. Any openings in the privacy screen are not be exceed 25mm in size and the total area of openings is not be exceed 25% of the area of the screen. 

b.     The upper level balcony off the eastern side of the dwelling is to be reduced in depth to a maximum of 1500mm and the pergola above deleted and replaced with a roof cover to a maximum depth of 900mm.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 13 Cairo Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              10 February 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D11/15

 

 

Subject:                  496-504 Malabar Road, Maroubra (DA/9/2015)

Folder No:               DA/9/2015

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                 Addition of massage service to an existing health premises (healing centre).

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mary Lynch

Owner:                    The Owners - Strata Plan No. 30569

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

eview23329

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

As the proposal involves massage services the application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

 

 

 

 

 

1.       Proposal

 

The subject application seeks to include massage services to the existing health premises (healing centre). The proposed hours of operation are 8.30am-6.30pm Monday to Sunday, within the existing approved hours.

 

2.       Site

 

The subject site is located on the intersection of Malabar Road and Mons Avenue in Maroubra, opposite the Maroubra Memorial RSL/Sports Club. The site is in close proximity to Maroubra Beach and located within a small mixed use development with residential above the subject premises and adjoins a local supermarket.

 

Existing street view

 

3.       Site History

 

DA/14/2012:    Approval granted on 22 February 2012 under delegated authority for internal fitout and use of the premises as a healing centre including shop front signage.

 

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.

 

Key Issues

 

Nature of the use

The subject application seeks to expand the services offered as approved under DA/14/2012 to include. Current services offered at the health premises include hypnotherapy, numerology, reflexology, counseling, aromatherapy, past life regression, psychology and the like. The proposal retains the existing layout of three health rooms and the approved hours of operation from 8.30am-6.30pm Monday to Sunday. The current hours of operation have not resulted in any complaints or objections from the adjoining residential sites and the proposal is unlikely to increase noise generation or parking demands above the approved use.

 

The applicant has submitted that the current staffing numbers are to be maintained, with one staff member to provide massage services. Copies of the staff members qualifications have been provided to Council, and a condition of consent has been recommended to ensure that any new or existing staff members must provide copies of the relevant massage qualifications to Council for record keeping purposes prior to commencing any massage services.

 

It is considered that the proposal is for a legitimate massage use and not for the provision of sexual services or the like and meets the relevant objectives and controls of the RLEP 2012 an RDCP 2013.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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. 9/2015 for the addition of massage services to the existing health centre at No.3/496-504 Malabar Road, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

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 No.

Drawn by

Dated

Received

Plan 2

Mary Lynch

11/01/2012

09/01/2015

 

2.     All new massage therapists are required to submit the relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications for approval by Council’s Manager Development Assessment.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

3.     The owner of the subject site must advise Council in writing of any change in the tenant that is operating the massage shop and advise the new tenant that they must provide Council with the qualifications of all staff involved in providing massage services prior to commencing the new operation.

 

4.     The premises must not to be used for the purposes of a brothel and in this regard, no sexual services of any kind are to be offered in association with the massage use.

 

5.     The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to:

        Monday – Sunday      8.30am – 6.30pm

 

6.     All new massage therapists are required to submit the relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications for approval by Council’s Manager Development Assessment.

 

7.     This consent must be implemented in conjunction with Development Consent No. 14/2012.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil