Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 14 April 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                                                                                                     14 April 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, 14 April 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 - 10 March 2015

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.

D19/15     263-269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/566/2014) DEFERRED... 1

D20/15     3 Pardey Street, Kingsford (DA/57/2015)............................. 33

D21/15     198-202 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/901/2014) ............... 39

D22/15     225 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/583/2014).......................... 47

D23/15     369 Arden Street, South Coogee (DA/723/2014).................. 59

D24/15     29 Park Avenue, Randwick (DA/855/2014)........................... 77

D25/15     5 Howard Street, Randwick (DA/903/2014).......................... 97

D26/15     16 Glen Avenue, Randwick (DA/198/2012/A)..................... 109

D27/15     1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/B)................ 113

D28/15     8 Simeon Street, Clovelly (DA/794/2011/D)....................... 127

D29/15     446-448 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/685/2014).......... 133

D30/15     JRPP 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensingtion (DA/320/2013/B).. 149

Miscellaneous Report (record of voting NOT required)

M3/15       Recent Land and Environment Court Decisions.................... 193    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D19/15

 

 

Subject:                  263-269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/566/2014) Deferred

Folder No:               DA/566/2014

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment; Jason Rider, Development Engineer     

 

Proposal:                 Partial demolition, alterations and additions to the existing RSL building for the establishment of a child care centre catering for 145 children and new parking area fronting Susan Lane (Heritage Item)(Variation to floor space ratio& building height controls)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Hnl Properties Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Hnl Properties Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview26333.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Introduction

 

Council at its meeting held on 24 March 2015 resolved to the defer DA 566/2014 to the Planning Committee meeting scheduled for 14 April 2015. The application was deferred to allow the resident objectors’ further time to consider the Assessment Report and for Council to ensure that all relevant objectors were notified of the next Planning Committee meeting The list of objectors has also been reviewed to record all that made submissions.

 

As the key issue with regard to the proposed development is the traffic and parking implications associated with a child care centre accommodating 90 children, this report also provides further details in response to specific issues and alternative solutions put forward by a number of residents since the release of the Assessment Report.

 

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 list of objectors has been corrected and identifies the following submissions that were received as a result of the notification process:

 

1.     A resident at Knox Street, Clovelly

2.     38 Knox Street, Clovelly

3.     41 Knox Street, Clovelly

4.     49 Knox Street, Clovelly

5.     50 Knox Street, Clovelly

6.     51 Knox Street, Clovelly

7.     51A Knox Street, Clovelly

8.     53 Knox Street, Clovelly

9.     54 Knox Street, Clovelly

10.   Que Consulting on behalf of 53 Knox Street, Clovelly

11.   2 Fewings Street, Clovelly

12.   10 Fewings Street, Clovelly

13.   12 Fewings Street, Clovelly

14.   16 Fewings Street, Clovelly

15.   20 Fewings Street, Clovelly

16.   29 Greville Street, Clovelly

17.   40 Greville Street, Clovelly

18.   253 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

19.   255 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

20.   257 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

21.   259 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

22.   261 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

23.   271 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

24.   273 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

25.   275 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

26.   277 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

27.   GTK Consultting on behalf of 279 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

28.   279 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

29.   281 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

 

Key Issues

 

Traffic and Parking

The specific issues raised by the objectors are in bold with the Officer’s response following:

 

·             Staff car parking inadequate and permanently parked this vicinity during child care hours.

With the reduction of child numbers to 90 the number of staff has also been reduced to a total of 14. Under the DCP this will require 7 spaces which have been fully provided on the site and are accessed from Susan Lane. The proposal is therefore fully compliant with its staff parking obligations. It should also be noted that this is a significant improvement on staff parking from the previous use of the site as a RSL club which provided zero off-street parking for staff. It is also noted that the site is situated adjacent to a bus stop on Clovelly Road. From previous studies of childcare centres it would not be expected that every staff member drives to work. The required parking rate of 1 space per two staff reflects this likelihood.

 

·             Susan Lane is too narrow to allow safe passage of cars and pedestrians and a vehicular collision could result in a vehicle falling off the cliff.

It is recognised that Susan Lane is narrow and currently one way traffic. No pickup and drop off is currently proposed or indeed would be supported from Susan Lane. The car spaces accessed from Susan Lane are for staff only and are suitably angled to allow for adequate manoeuvring into and out of the car spaces. Swept paths for the car spaces have been assessed and are satisfactory.  With the provision of the pickup and drop-off zones on Knox Street and Clovelly Road there would be no need for parents and carers to use Susan Lane for pickup and drop-off.

 

There is a guard rail along the full length of Susan Lane. The guard rail will only be removed in the vicinity of the staff spaces to permit vehicle access. The staff spaces will all have wheel stops and protected by a 1.2m high solid barrier.

 

·             Cars parked on the proposed Susan Lane parking spaces will need to blindly reverse along the very narrow lane to leave the parking spaces, jeopardising oncoming traffic and any or all pedestrians on the lane.

Only a short reversing manoeuvre is required into Susan Lane from the car spaces before a vehicle can then proceed in a forward direction. As the spaces will be for staff only this would likely be done in the evenings well after the peak times of the childcare centre.  The situation is not unlike a vehicle reversing out of any domestic property onto a rear laneway or street. As there are no side garage walls, sightlines and manoeuvring are actually safer than say a domestic garage fronting a laneway.  There is no pedestrian footpath in Susan Lane so it would be expected the movement of pedestrians in the laneway would be minimal especially in the evenings when staff leave the centre.

 

·             There is an existing Family day care within 10 metres of the proposed parking places off Susan Lane. The infants and parents dropping off here will be subject to particular risk from the complex movement of cars so close to the existing facility.

 

·             There are a number of residents on Knox street who have applied and been rejected in their application for off street parking - the proposed parking for the new site directly impacts these residents who don't have alternative parking options. &

 

·             The proposed parking terms (for 10 spaces on Knox Street and Clovelly Road - referenced on page 16 of the impact traffic assessment) adjacent to the new site, further limits the residents parking in Knox Street and Clovelly Road.

 

·             The traffic impact assessment document supplied in the DA noted that the available parking in Zone A during the proposed pick up and drop off hours were minimal (only 2 and 3 available spaces respectively), which indicates the importance of this parking area to local residents, i.e. Knox St and Clovelly Rd residents nearby the proposed site without off-street parking.

With the reduction of child numbers to 90, the peak parking demand for pickup and drop-off will be reduced to 11 spaces.  These can be accommodated along and directly opposite the site frontage in Knox St and along the site frontage on Clovelly Road. The proposed time restricted pickup and drop-off zones at these locations would ensure a satisfactory turnover of spaces and thereby minimise the impact on neighbouring frontages. Details of the parking zones are required to be approved by Randwick Traffic Committee prior to the commencement of operations of the child care centre. It should also be noted that the 11 spaces is the peak parking demand and would only be expected to occur for about 10-15 minutes at a time based on surveys of other child care centres.  These spaces will be unrestricted and freely available to residents outside of the restricted peak times of the childcare centre including evenings and all weekend. The 7 staff spaces are also proposed to be made available to the public outside of business hours thereby potentially adding additional parking and providing a public benefit.

 

The impact on on-street parking was assessed and necessitated the reduction in child number from 145 to 90. This was deemed to provide an acceptable impact on street parking.

 

·             No mention has been made for casual visits and special events such as children’s entertainers, Christmas parties, children’s concerts etc. that occur with frequency at such Child Care Centres, when large numbers of parents and carers would be expected to descend on the centre.

Assessing parking demand for these type of events is difficult to determine however they would not be expected to generate traffic and parking demand above and beyond the peak times for pickup and drop-off. They would also not be expected to occur at a frequency that would warrant refusal of the application.

 

·             There are no pedestrian crossings to cross Clovelly Rd or Knox St, making likelihood of parents using the south side of Clovelly road for parking less likely and increasing the load on the Knox St side of the road.

This was deliberate as a pickup and drop-off on the southern side of Clovelly Road is not supported from a safety perspective and should be discouraged. Pedestrian refuges & pedestrian crossings were also discussed with the Transport Engineer during assessment of the application however due to the width of the roadway, they are not considered to be practical in Knox St.  They were also not considered necessary on Clovelly Road due to the reasons above and that all provision for pickup and drop off is provided in Knox St and the Clovelly Road immediate site frontage. The pedestrian footpath will be widened from 1.3 to 1.8m along the Knox frontage  and upgraded along the Clovelly Road frontage.

 

·             The bus stop at 255 Clovelly Road takes up valuable parking space. According to Google Maps it is only 180m from the bus stop at 255 Clovelly Road to the next bus stop (before corner of Arden Street). Other bus stops along Clovelly road are approximately 300-400 metres apart so we question whether this bus stop at 255 Clovelly Road (East Bound) is necessary. This could accommodate 5-6 additional car spaces for residences and the proposed kindergarten.

This would be unable to be changed by Randwick Traffic Committee and would likely be a matter for Transport NSW.  Council’s Transport Engineers have advised however that both these bus stops are used heavily and so this option would unlikely be supported. The bus stop also provides a highly visible alternative transport option to patrons and staff of the childcare centre. Removing the bus stop may actually have a detrimental effect and instead encourage staff & patrons to drive to the centre.

 

•      Pedestrian crossing/s Knox Street and/or Clovelly Road, to spread parking load to both sides of the road.

The timed pickup and drop-off zone is proposed on both sides of Knox St which will spread parking load to both sides of the road as desired. Pedestrian refuges & pedestrian crossings were discussed with the Transport Engineer during assessment of the application however due to the width of the roadway, they are not considered to be practical in Knox St.

 

·             Use of Susan Lane (specifically between Barry Street and Knox Street), as a thoroughfare for cars picking up and dropping of 145 children to the centre.

 

·             There is no footpath in Susan Lane and no verge for residents entering and exiting their properties. With the expected increase in traffic this lane then becomes a very dangerous place for children. Plenty of young children use this lane to walk to and from the local primary schools, St Antony's and Clovelly Public.

 

·             Children use Susan lane for cycling skateboards and basketball after school a busy time for drop offs.

 

·             Susan Lane has no footpath to escape to during drop off and pick up times which is when this lane is most used by residents and pedestrians.

 

·             Susan Lane and Fewings St already strained to capacity by school traffic from St Anthonys Clovelly Primary School, Church and Family Day care.

 

·             Cars queuing in Susan Lane waiting to enter Knox street to drop off and pick up children, potentially block residents from exiting their rear lane car parks and garages during peak commuter times.

 

·             This lane is not really suitable for frequent car traffic. The road is a stretch of broken bitumen and tar and increased traffic will only deteriorate the lane surface even further.

Parents and Carers are not expected to significantly use Susan Lane since all pickup and drop-off is provided on Knox St and Clovelly Rd. There may be a slight traffic increase due to the staff accessing the staff spaces however this would occur early morning or in the evenings minimising risk to pedestrians.

 

The reduction in child numbers to 90 has significantly reduced the vehicle trip generation by 53 vehicle trips per hour for the morning peak and 46 vehicle trips per hour for the afternoon peak. This is expected to reduce the traffic impacts in the surrounding streets. The traffic associated with the reduced capacity of the child care centre is not considered significant enough to generate any significant delays in Susan Lane.

 

The conditions of consent will require Susan Lane to be upgraded along the full site frontage.

 

·             Make Susan Lane one way traffic (west bound), between Knox and Barry Streets - with speed bumps on entry. This would discourage traffic from using this residential lane as a thoroughfare and reduce traffic speed. The road runs uphill from East to West, which also reduces speed.

 

·             Add convex mirrors to increase visibility at the junction of Susan lane and the unnamed road which runs N/W from the garage of 251 Clovelly Road, perpendicular to Susan Lane. Also the addition of convex mirrors at the corner of Susan lane and Fewings Street.

 

·             Assuming there will be increased traffic, even if traffic conditions on Susan Lane are changed to suit local residents (per note above) - reseal Susan Lane to cope with the increased traffic.

As discussed above, the traffic associated with the reduced capacity of the child care centre is not considered significant enough to require a change in the traffic conditions in Susan Lane.

 

·             Fatalities have occurred at the intersection of Clovelly Rd and Knox St Clovelly

Council has no record of a fatality at this intersection. There is a record of one accident involving an injury in the last 5 years that being on 18 November 2011.  The only other record was an accident in 2009 requiring a tow away but no injury.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application satisfactorily addresses the relevant provisions of Council’s DCP in relation to Part D11 – Child Care Centres, subject to the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent, recommendations made by acoustic consultant and implementation of the operational management plan. The proposed built form is sympathetic to the scale and character of the heritage item and its adaptive resuse will allow for its ongoing conservation. With regard to traffic, parking and safety concerns, the proposal has been amended to provide for adequate staff parking and drop of and pick up arrangements.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Building Height and Floor Space Ratio respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

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. 566/2014 for partial demolition, alterations and additions to the existing building for the establishment of a child care centre catering for 90 children including a new parking for 7 vehicles off Susan Lane, at No. 263-269 Clovelly Road, subject to the following conditions:

 

Development Consent 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

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA02 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA03 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA05 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA06 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA07 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA08 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA09 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA 13 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA14 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA15 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA16 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

DA17 Issue E

Bongiorno Hawkins

12.01.15

15 January,2015

Landscape Plans 1 of 4 to 4 of 4

Tessa Rose

22 July, 2014

19 August 2014

Sample Boards 1 and 2

Tessa Rose

 

19 August, 2014

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The proposed lapped and capped timber paling fencing shown adjacent to the eastern boundary is to be replaced by a masonry wall of a minimum height of 1.8m above existing ground level. Details are to be shown on the Construction Certificate Plans.

 

b.   The plans are to be amended to incorporate the existing stage area including wooden floor and steps in accordance with the plan prepared by City Plan Heritage noted as attachment A to the heritage report prepared for DA/566/2014 dated 25 February 2015. Details demonstrating compliance in this regard are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment prior to issue of the Construction Certificate.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

The following conditions of consent must be complied with before a ‘Construction Certificate’ is issued by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

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 conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

3.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

4.       A suitably qualified heritage consultant is to be nominated for the project. The heritage consultant's name and qualifications are to be submitted prior to issue of a Construction Certificate. The consultant is to provide technical heritage advice, conduct heritage inductions and inspect the construction works on site.

 

5.       A Schedule of Conservation Works for the existing building detailing the proposed conservation, repair and reinstatement works to the facades, Dress Circle room and its ceiling as well as the vertical original sign of the former cinema (supported by architectural drawings where applicable) shall be prepared in accordance with the principles embodied in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and the methodology outlined in J.S. Kerr’s The Conservation Plan. This Schedule shall be prepared by an architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation, and shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

6.       An archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development. This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture. Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library.

 

7.       Details of the proposed paint scheme prepared by a suitably qualified colour consultant are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

8.       The current 2002 Conservation Management Plan for the site shall be revised and updated to reflect the subject works and be prepared in accordance with the principles embodied in the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and the methodology outlined in J.S. Kerr’s The Conservation Plan. The revised CMP shall be prepared by an architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation, and is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Heritage Planner and the Director City Planning within 12 months of any approval for the current development.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

9.       Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

10.     In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 12 July 2012, based on the development cost of 3,420.000.00 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $32,400.00.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment. Please contact Council on telephone 9399 0999 or 1300 722 542 for the indexed contribution amount prior to payment.

To calculate the indexed levy, the following formula must be used:

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

CP2 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney, as published by the ABS in  respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment

CP1 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the ABS in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of imposition of the condition requiring payment of the levy.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

11.     The required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, must be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

At the time of this development consent, Long Service Levy payment is applicable on building work having a value of $25,000 or more, at the rate of 0.35% of the cost of the works.

 

Security Deposit

12.     The following damage / civil works security deposit requirement must be complied with as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; and as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

·           $10,000.00        -   Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

The owner/builder is also requested to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Design Alignment levels

13.     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, shall be:

 

Susan Lane frontage

 

·         50mm above the edge of bitumen at all points opposite, along the full site frontage.

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the roadway 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 0881.

 

14.     The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $150.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Carpark Design

15.     The internal carspaces must be designed and constructed in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1 (2004) – Off Street Car Parking and the following additional requirements;

 

·             The carspaces must match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council

·             The carspaces must include wheel stops to prevent vehicles colliding with the carpark’s southern wall to the requirements of AS 2890.1.

 

Details of compliance are to be included in the construction certificate documentation.

 

Stormwater Drainage

16.     Surface water/stormwater (from the redeveloped portion of the site) must be drained and discharged to the street gutter in front of the site to the satisfaction of the certifying authority and details of the proposed stormwater drainage system are to be included in the construction certificate details for the development.

 

Details of any works proposed to be carried out in or on a public road/footway are to be submitted to and approved by Council prior to commencement of works.

Sydney Water

17.     All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

 

·          Quick Check agents details -  see Building and Developing then Quick Check and

·          Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Building and Development then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans.

 

Waste Management

18.     A Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development, is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning.

 

The Waste Management plan is required to be prepared in accordance with Council's Waste Management Guidelines for Proposed Development and must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·       The use of the premises and the number and size of occupancies.

·       The type and quantity of waste to be generated by the development.

·       Demolition and construction waste, including materials to be re-used or recycled.

·       Details of the proposed recycling and waste disposal contractors.

·       Waste storage facilities and equipment.

·       Access and traffic arrangements.

·       The procedures and arrangements for the on-going waste management of the childcare centre including collection, storage and removal of waste and recycling of materials.

 

Further details of Council's requirements and guidelines, including pro-forma Waste Management plan forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre.

 

 

 

Street Tree Management

19.     The applicant must submit a total payment of $2,851.75 (including GST), to cover the cost for Council to:

 

          a.       Remove, stump-grind and dispose of the row of eight existing Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo’s) spaced evenly along the length of the Knox Street frontage, between Susan Lane and Clovelly Road (including the 3rd tree back from Clovelly Rd that has already been cut off at stump level), so as to accommodate the external civil works that are required along this frontage, including a relocated/reconstructed kerb, road re-construction, indented parking bays and a widened public footpath;

 

b.       Supply, plant and maintain 5 x 25 litre new street trees, Banksia serrata (Saw Toothed Banksia’s) along the length of the Knox Street frontage, spaced evenly between Susan Lane and Clovelly Road at the completion of all works.

 

This fee must be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks’ notice (allow longer for public holidays or extended periods of rain) to arrange for removal of the trees prior to the commencement of site works, as well as upon completion, to arrange for planting of the replacement trees.

 

20.     Fully detailed plans and specifications of the proposed rock removal and structural works adjacent to the Susan Lane frontage (including details of any ground anchors if required) as well as certification from a profession Structural Engineer are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of City Services prior to the issuing of a construction certificate. The plans shall demonstrate compliance with the following;

 

•    There must be no loss of support for the roadway in Susan Lane

•    The proposed works must eliminate any on-going potential for rock to fall into the development site or neighbouring properties.

•    Adequate provision must be made for drainage of seepage and/or stormwater between the rock face and proposed wall.

 

Design, Construction & Fit-out of Food Premises

21.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

The premises is to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2010, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises.  Details of the design and construction of the premises are to be included in the documentation for the construction certificate to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

22.     The design and construction of the food premises must comply with the following requirements, as applicable:-

 

a.     The floors of kitchens, food preparation areas and the like are to be constructed of materials which are impervious, non slip and non abrasive.  The floor is to be finished to a smooth even surface, graded and drained to a floor waste connected to the sewer.  The intersection of walls with floor and plinths is to be coved, to facilitate cleaning.

b.     Walls of the kitchen preparation areas and the like are to be of suitable construction finished in a light colour with glazed tiles, stainless steel, laminated plastics or similar approved material adhered directly to the wall adjacent to cooking and food preparation facilities or areas, to provide a smooth even surface.

The glazed tiling or other approved material is to extend up to the underside of any mechanical exhaust ventilation hoods and a minimum of 450mm above bench tops, wash hand basins, sinks and equipment.

c.     Walls where not tiled are to be cement rendered or be of rigid smooth faced non-absorbent material (i.e. fibrous cement sheeting, plasterboard or other approved material) and finished to a smooth even surface, painted with a washable paint of a light colour or sealed with other approved materials.

d.     The ceilings of kitchens, food preparation areas, storerooms and the like are to be of rigid smooth-faced, non absorbent material (i.e. fibrous plaster, plasterboard, fibre cement sheet, cement render or other approved material), with a light coloured washable paint finish.  ‘Drop-down’ ceiling panels must not be provided in food preparation or cooking areas.

e.     All stoves, refrigerators, bain-maries, stock pots, washing machines, hot water heaters, large scales, food mixers, food warmers, cupboards, counters, bars etc must be supported on wheels, concrete plinths a minimum 75mm in height, metal legs minimum 150mm in height, brackets or approved metal framework of the like.

f.      Cupboards, cabinets, benches and shelving may be glass, metal, plastic, timber sheeting or other approved material.  The use of particleboard or similar material is not permitted unless laminated on all surfaces.

g.     Fly screens and doors with self-closing devices, are to be provided to all external door and window openings and an electronic insect control device/s are to be provided in suitable locations within the food premises.

h.     A mechanical ventilation exhaust system is to be installed where cooking or heating processes are carried out in the kitchen or in food preparation areas, where required under the provisions of Clause F4.12 of the BCA and Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2.

Emission control equipment shall be provided in mechanical exhaust systems serving the cooking appliances, to effectively minimise the emission of odours, vapours and oils.

i.      Wash hand basins must be provided in convenient positions located in the food preparation areas, with hot and cold water, together with a sufficient supply of soap and clean towels.  The hot and cold water must be supplied to the wash hand basins through a suitable mixing device.

j.      Cool rooms or freezers must have a smooth epoxy coated concrete floor, which is to be sloped to the door.  A floor waste connected to the sewer is to be located outside the cool room/freezer.  The floor waste should be provided with a removable basket within a fixed basket arrestor and must comply with Sydney Water requirements.

k.     All cool rooms and freezers must be able to be opened from the inside without a key and fitted with an alarm (bell) that can only be operated from within the cool room/freezer.

l.      Any space or gap between the top of any cool room or freezer and the ceiling must be fully enclosed and kept insect and pest proof (e.g. plasterboard partition with gaps sealed).

 

Sydney Water Requirements

23.     All building, plumbing and drainage work must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation.

 

The approved plans must be submitted to a Sydney Water Quick Check agent, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

If suitable, the plans will be appropriately stamped.  For details please refer to the Sydney Water web site at www.sydneywater.com.au for:

 

·          Quick Check agents details -  see Building and Developing then Quick Check and

·          Guidelines for Building Over/Adjacent to Sydney Water Assets – see Building and Development then Building and Renovating, or telephone 13 20 92.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

24.     Liquid trade waste materials are to be drained to the sewer (via a suitable grease trap) and details of compliance are to be submitted to the Certifying Authority.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

The requirements contained in the following conditions of consent must be complied with and details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate for the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Councils development consent conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

25.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all building work must be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA).  Details of compliance with the BCA are to be included in the construction certificate application.


 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the commencement of any works on the site.  The necessary documentation and information must be provided to the Council or the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ (PCA), as applicable.

 

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 public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

26.     Prior to the commencement of any building works, the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)     a Construction Certificate must be obtained from the Council or an accredited certifier, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

A copy of the construction certificate, the approved development consent plans and consent conditions must be kept on the site at all times and be made available to the Council officers and all building contractors for assessment.

b)     a Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) must be appointed to carry out the necessary building inspections and to issue an occupation certificate; and

c)      a principal contractor must be appointed for the building work, or in relation to residential building work, an owner-builder permit may be obtained in accordance with the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989, and the PCA and Council are to be notified accordingly; and

d)     the principal contractor must be advised of the required critical stage inspections and other inspections to be carried out, as specified by the Principal Certifying Authority; and

e)     at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any works.

 

In relation to residential building work, the principal contractor must be the holder of a contractor licence, in accordance with the provisions of the Home Building Act 1989.

 

Dilapidation Reports

27.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

·          excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·          new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings)

·          excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·          as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

28.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW EPA Guidelines must be satisfied at all times.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW EPA Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works on site.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

29.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·          location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·          location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·          location of building materials for construction;

·          provisions for public safety;

·          dust control measures;

·          site access location and construction

·          details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·          protective measures for tree preservation;

·          provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·          location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·          details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·          provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·          construction noise and vibration management;

·          construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Demolition Work Plan

30.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

The Demolition Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

·          The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·          Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·          Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

·          Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·          Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne dust and asbestos

·          Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·          Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·          Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste demolition/building materials

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition work.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

 

Notes

§   It is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

§   Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

Civil Works

31.     A separate written approval from Council is required to be obtained in relation to all works which are located externally from the site within the road reserve/public place, in accordance with the requirements of the Roads Act 1993.  Detailed plans and specifications of the proposed works are to be submitted to and approved by the Director of City Services & Randwick Traffic Committee prior to commencing of any works within the road reserve.

 

All works within the road reserve must be carried out to the satisfaction of Council and certification from a certified practicing engineer is to be provided to Council upon completion of the works.

 

Relevant Council assessment and inspection fees, as specified in Council's adopted Pricing Policy, are required to be paid to Council prior to commencement of the works.

 

NOTES

·      The proposed median on Clovelly Road is not required

·      The applicant shall liaise with Council’s Coordinator of Engineering Services & Department of Integrated Transport to discuss the above requirements and to arrange placement of item/s on the agenda for the next available meeting of Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

Construction Traffic Management

32.     An application for a ‘Works Zone’ and Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Councils Integrated Transport Department, and approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee, for a ‘Works Zone’ to be provided in Clovelly Road and/or Knox Street for the duration of the demolition & construction works. 

 

The ‘Works Zone’ must have a minimum length of 12m and extend for a minimum duration of three months.  The suitability of the proposed length and duration is to be demonstrated in the application for the Works Zone.  The application for the Works Zone must be submitted to Council at least six (6) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site to allow for assessment and tabling of agenda for the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

The requirement for a Works Zone may be varied or waived only if it can be demonstrated in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic Engineers) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) can and will be undertaken wholly within the site.  The written approval of Council must be obtained to provide a Works Zone or to waive the requirement to provide a Works Zone prior to the commencement of any site work.

 

33.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to the commencement of any site work.

 

The Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must include the following details, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

·      A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

·       A site plan/s showing the site, roads, footpaths, site access points and vehicular movements

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

·       Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including removal of excavated materials, delivery of materials and concrete to the site)

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

·       Impacts of the work and vehicular movements on the road network, traffic and pedestrians

·       Proposed hours of construction related activities and vehicular movements to and from the site

·       Current/proposed approvals from other Agencies and Authorities (including NSW Roads & Maritime Services, Police and State Transit Authority)

·       Any activities proposed to be located or impact upon Council’s road, footways or any public place

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

 

The approved Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be complied with at all times, and any proposed amendments to the approved Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and be approved by Council in writing, prior to the implementation of any variations to the Plan.

 

34.     Any necessary approvals must be obtained from NSW Police, Roads & Maritime Services, Transport, and relevant Service Authorities, prior to commencing work upon or within the road, footway or nature strip.

 

Public Utilities

35.     A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

36.     The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction 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 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Inspections During Construction

37.     The building works must be inspected by the Principal Certifying Authority, in accordance with sections 109 E (3) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 162A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, to monitor compliance with the relevant standards of construction, Council’s development consent and the construction certificate.

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Site Signage

38.     A sign must be erected and maintained in a prominent position on the site for the duration of the works, which contains the following details:

 

·          name, address, contractor licence number and telephone number of the principal contractor, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours, or owner-builder permit details (as applicable)

·          name, address and telephone number of the Principal Certifying Authority,

·          a statement stating that “unauthorised entry to the work site is prohibited”.

 

Restriction on Working Hours

39.     Building, demolition and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

All building, demolition and site work, including site deliveries (except as detailed below)

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Excavating of rock, use of jack-hammers, pile-drivers, vibratory rollers/compactors or the like

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

An application to vary the abovementioned hours may be submitted to Council’s Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services for consideration and approval to vary the specified hours may be granted in exceptional circumstances and for limited occasions (e.g. for public safety, traffic management or road safety reasons).  Any applications are to be made on the standard application form and include payment of the relevant fees and supporting information.  Applications must be made at least 10 days prior to the date of the proposed work and the prior written approval of Council must be obtained to vary the standard permitted working hours.

 

Demolition Work Requirements

40.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·          Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and Regulations

·          WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·          WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·          Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·          The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

·          Relevant EPA Guidelines

·          Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

41.     Work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·          Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

·          Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

·          A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).  Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

·          On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

·          Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

·          A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the Principal certifying authority upon completion of the asbestos related works which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development Section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

42.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.  Details are to be included in the Construction Site Management Plan.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

43.     Public safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition, excavation and construction works and the following requirements must be complied with:

 

a)     Public access to the building site and materials must be restricted by existing boundary fencing or temporary site fencing having a minimum height of 1.5m, to Council’s satisfaction.

Temporary site fences are required to be constructed of cyclone wire fencing material and be structurally adequate, safe and constructed in a professional manner.  The use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

b)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time.

c)      The road, footpath, vehicular crossing and nature strip must be maintained in a good, safe, clean condition and free from any excavations, obstructions, trip hazards, goods, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway, vehicular crossing, nature strip or any public place must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

d)     Building operations such as brick cutting, washing tools or equipment and mixing mortar are not permitted on public footpaths, roadways, nature strips, in any public place or any location which may lead to the discharge of materials into the stormwater drainage system.

e)     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.

f)      Site fencing, building materials, bulk bins/waste containers and other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container in a public place can be made to Council’s Health, Building and Regulatory Services department.

g)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

44.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

45.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations must be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

46.     Prior to undertaking any demolition, excavation or building work in the following circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·      when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·      when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (e.g. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·      when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land;

·      as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Building Encroachments

47.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Tree Management

48.     Approval is granted for removal of the self-seeded Morus nigra (Mulberry) that is growing out of the wall along the northern site boundary, fronting Susan Lane, as well as the Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) that is growing out of the wall along the western site boundary, fronting Knox Street.

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

49.     Any openings within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place (i.e. for proposed drainage works or installation of services), must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

a)     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

b)     Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer must be notified at least 48 hours in advance of commencing any excavation works and also immediately upon completing the works (on 9399 0691 or 0409 033 921 during business hours), to enable any necessary inspections or works to be carried out.

c)     Relevant Road / Asset Opening Permit fees, construction fees, inspection fees and security deposits, must be paid to Council prior to commencing any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place,

d)     The owner/developer must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate or occupation of the development (whichever is sooner).

e)     Excavations and trenches must be back-filled and compacted in accordance with AUSPEC standards 306U.

f)     Excavations or trenches located upon a road or footpath are required to be provided with 50mm depth of cold-mix bitumen finish, level with the existing road/ground surface, to enable Council to readily complete the finishing works at a future date.

g)     Excavations or trenches located upon turfed areas are required to be back-filled, compacted, top-soiled and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf.

h)     The work and area must be maintained in a clean, safe and tidy condition at all times and the area must be thoroughly cleaned at the end of each days activities and upon completion.

i)      The work can only be carried out in accordance with approved hours of building work as specified in the development consent, unless the express written approval of Council has been obtained beforehand.

j)     Sediment control measures must be implemented in accordance with the conditions of development consent and soil, sand or any other material must not be allowed to enter the stormwater drainage system or cause a pollution incident.

k)     The owner/developer must have a Public Liability Insurance Policy in force, with a minimum cover of $10 million and a copy of the insurance policy must be provided to Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing an ‘Occupation Certificate’.

 

Note:  For the purpose of this consent, any reference to ‘occupation certificate’ shall also be taken to mean ‘interim occupation certificate’ unless otherwise stated.

 

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, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

50.     An Occupation Certificate must be obtained from the Principal Certifying Authority prior to any occupation of the building work encompassed in this development consent (including alterations and additions to existing buildings), in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

Food Safety

51.     The kitchen must be inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer to ascertain compliance with relevant Food Safety Standards and the written approval of Council (being the relevant Food Authority for this food business) must be obtained prior to the operation of the food business.

 

52.     The acoustic mitigation measures outlined in acoustic report undertaken by RSA Acoustics dated 15 January 2015, Doc Reference Report 13260R6 are to be implemented in accordance with section 7 of the acoustic report. Details of acoustic attenuation fixed measures compliance shall be provided to the principal certifying authority prior to issuing a construction certificate.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

53.     Subject to the approval of Randwick Traffic Committee where appropriate, the applicant must meet the full cost for a Council approved contractor to:

 

a.       Remove existing kerb & gutter on eastern side of Knox Street as required and construct new kerb and gutter & indented parking bay approximately 3.6m from boundary alignment to Council’s requirements & satisfaction.

b.       Carry out a full depth, minimum 2.0 metre wide, road construction in front of the new kerb and gutter along the Knox street frontage, to Council’s specifications and requirements.

c.        Remove the existing 1.3m wide footpath and replace with a 1.8m wide concrete footpath along the full site frontage on Knox Street.

d.       Remove & replace full width concrete footpath on Clovelly Road frontage  including any woks required for the proposed disabled parking space.

e.       Adjust centerline markings in Knox Street to ensure compliance with Rule 208 of the Australian road rules

 

f.        Install any road signage as required including at the proposed location of the pickup and drop-off zones on Clovelly Road and  Knox Street stating “15 minute parking 7:00-9:00am  3:30-6:30pm Mon-Fri” (unless varied by RTC).

 

g.       Remove the existing guard rail and construct gutter and layback including any associated roadworks along the Susan Lane frontage for the carpark access.

 

54.     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.

 

55.     All external civil work to be carried out on Council property (including the installation and repair of roads, footpaths, vehicular crossings, kerb and guttering and drainage works), must be carried out in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works” and the following requirements: 

 

a)     All work on Council land must be carried out by Council, unless specific written approval has been obtained from Council to use non-Council contractors.

 

b)     Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Civil Works Application Form, prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, together with payment of the relevant fees.

 

c)     If it is proposed to use non-Council contractors to carry out the civil works on Council land, the work must not commence until the written approval has been obtained from Council and the work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of consent, Council’s design details and payment of a Council design and supervision fee.

 

d)     The civil works must be completed in accordance with Council’s conditions of consent and approved design and construction documentation, prior to occupation of the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

 

56.     That part of the nature-strip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicant’s expense.

 

57.     At the completion of works, certification form a certified practicing structural engineer for all structural works adjacent to the Susan Lane frontage is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the PCA and Council (if Council is not the PCA). The certification is to include stated compliance with the relevant conditions of consent.

 

58.     Prior to release of an Occupation Certificate a report by a suitably qualified consultant is to be submitted to the PCA and Council (if Council is not the PCA) demonstrating acceptable levels of potential exposure impact on the centre and its occupants from sources of potentially significant electromagnetic devices within 300m of the site.

 

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.

 

External Lighting

59.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

Hours of Operation

60.     The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to the following:-

 

Monday – Friday only: 7:00am – 6:00pm.

 

Deliveries (including the loading and unloading of goods) are restricted to:

 

Monday to Friday only: 7:00am - 6.00pm

 

Food Storage

61.     All food preparation, cooking, display and storage activities must only be carried out within the approved food premises.

 

Storage shall be within appropriate shelves, off the floor and in approved storage containers.  External areas or structures must not be used for the storage, preparation or cooking of food, unless otherwise approved by Council in writing and subject to any necessary further approvals.

 

Food Safety Requirements

62.     The food premises must be registered with Council's Health, Building & Regulatory Services Department and the NSW Food Authority in accordance with the Food Safety Standards, prior to commencing business operations.

 

63.     A numerically scaled indicating thermometer or recording thermometer, accurate to the nearest degree Celsius being provided to refrigerators, cool rooms, other cooling appliances and bain-maries or other heated food storage/display appliances.  The thermometer is to be located so as to be read easily from the outside of the appliance.

 

A digital probe type thermometer must also be readily available to check the temperature of food items.

 

64.     All food that is to be kept hot should be heated within one (1) hour from the time when it was prepared or was last kept cold, to a temperature of not less than 60°C and keep this food hot at or above the temperature.  Food that is to be kept cold should be cooled, within four (4) hours from the time when it was prepared or was last kept hot, to a temperature of not more that 5°C and keep this food cold at or below that temperature.

 

65.     Food safety practices and the operation of the food premises must be in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2004, Food Standards Code and Food Safety Standards at all times, including the requirements and provisions relating to:

·       Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls.

·       Health and hygiene requirements.

·       Requirements for food handlers and businesses.

·       Cleaning, sanitising and maintenance.

·       Design and construction of food premises, fixtures, fitting and equipment.

 

The Proprietor of the food business and all staff carrying out food handling and food storage activities must have appropriate skills and knowledge in food safety and food hygiene matters, as required by the Food Safety Standards.

 

Failure to comply with the relevant food safety requirements is an offence and may result in legal proceedings, service of notices and/or the issuing of on-the-spot penalty infringement notices.

 

66.     The food premises must be kept in a clean and sanitary condition at all times, including all walls, floors, ceilings, fixtures, fittings, appliances, equipment, fridges, freezers, cool rooms, shelving, cupboards, furniture, crockery, utensils, storage containers, waste bins, light fittings, mechanical ventilation & exhaust systems & ducting, storage areas, toilet facilities, basins and sinks.

 

Environmental Amenity

67.     There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which will give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

68.     A validation report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics three (3) months after the business commences trading 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 area. Any recommendations outlined in the acoustic report are to be implemented in accordance with the report.

 

69.     The operation of the site and the project specific criteria for noise emissions shall be in accordance with the acoustic report by RSA Acoustics dated 15 January 2015, Doc Reference 13260R6 Noise Assessment unless otherwise stated by this development consent.

 

70.     Amplified music is not to be played in the outdoor play areas at any time.

 

71.     The outdoor areas on level 2 (uppermost floor) are not to be used in association with any periodic after hours events.

 

72.     The ROW serving the site from Fewings Street is not to be used for vehicular access in association with the child care centre usage of the site.

 

73.     A detailed plan of management shall be reviewed by a suitably qualified acoustic consultant and submitted for approval by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to an occupation certificate being issued, which shall include but not be limited to:

 

·      recommendations included in acoustic report prepared by RSA Acoustics section 7 ref no:13260R6 dated January 2015,

·      shall include approved children numbers for all outdoor areas,

·      ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval,

·      minimise the potential impact of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents,

·      effectively manage behaviour of children including but not limited to outdoor areas,

·      clearly state permitted numbers of children in outdoor areas

·      minimise noise emissions and associated nuisances,

·      effectively manage and respond to resident complaints.,

·      detail the frequency and likely duration of periodic after hours events

 

74.     The childcare centre shall not exceed a maximum number of 90 children at any one time.

 

75.     Outdoor areas shall be used in accordance with RSA Acoustic report dated January 2015 doc. Ref: 13260R6 and the approved plan of management at all times.

 

76.     Signs shall be erected in each outdoor area with the maximum permitted number of children clearly displayed in accordance with RSA Acoustic report dated January 2015 doc. Ref: 13260R6 and the approved plan of management.

 

77.     The childcare centre shall be operated in accordance with the approved plan of management and conditions of consent at all times.

 

78.     The proposed use of the premises and the operation of all plant and equipment must not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the use and operation of the premises (including all plant and equipment) shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (LA90), 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A).  The source noise level shall be assessed as an LAeq, 15 min and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

 

Waste Management

79.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the confines of the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council, prior to commencing business operations.

 

The waste storage area must be located within the property and not within any areas used for the preparation or storage of food.

 

A tap and hose is to be provided within or near the waste storage area and suitable drainage provided so as not to cause a nuisance.

 

Waste/recyclable bins and containers must not be placed on the footpath (or road), other than for waste collection, in accordance with Council’s requirements.

 

80.     Trade/commercial waste materials must not be disposed via council’s domestic garbage service.  All trade/commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales and details of the proposed waste collection and disposal service are to be submitted to the Council prior to commencing operation of the business.

 

Sanitary Facilities

81.     Sanitary facilities, plus wash hand basin and paper towel dispenser or hand dryer and appropriate signage, must be provided for customers and staff and be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times.

 

Regulatory Requirements

82.     The primary purpose of the premises is for the provision of food and the premises must not to be used principally, for the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol.

 

The written approval of Council and a relevant Liquor Licence under the (Liquor Act 2007) must be obtained beforehand for any proposed sale, supply and consumption of alcohol on the premises.

 

Plant & Equipment

83.     The operation of all plant and equipment upon the premises shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

Air Conditioners

84.     Air conditioning plant and equipment shall not be operated during the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises, or, as otherwise specified in relevant Noise Control Regulations:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 10.00pm on any Saturday, Sunday or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 10.00pm on any other day.

 

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 Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

A1      The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times.

 

Failure to comply with these requirements is an offence, which renders the responsible person liable to a maximum penalty of $1.1 million.  Alternatively, Council may issue a penalty infringement notice (for up to $3,000) for each offence.  Council may also issue notices and orders to demolish unauthorised or non-complying building work, or to comply with the requirements of Council’s development consent.

 

A1      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A2      In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, building works, including associated demolition and excavation works (as applicable) must not be commenced until:

 

§  A Construction Certificate has been obtained from an Accredited Certifier or Council,

§  An Accredited Certifier or Council has been appointed as the Principal Certifying Authority for the development,

§  Council and the Principal Certifying Authority have been given at least 2 days notice (in writing) prior to commencing any works.

 

A3      Council’s Building Certification & Fire Safety team can issue your Construction Certificate and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A4      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:

§  Install or erect any site fencing, hoardings or site structures

§  Operate a crane or hoist goods or materials over a footpath or road

§  Placement of a waste skip or any other container or article.

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A5      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

A6      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A7      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

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

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

§  an easement under section 40 of the Land & Environment Court Act 1979, as appropriate.

 

Section 177 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 creates a statutory duty of care in relation to support of land.  Accordingly, a person has a duty of care not to do anything on or in relation to land being developed (the supporting land) that removes the support provided by the supporting land to any other adjoining land (the supported land).

 

A8      Smoke alarms are required to be installed in all residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Building Code of Australia.  Details should be included in the construction certificate application.

 

A9      Demolition work and removal of asbestos materials:

§  A copy of Council’s Asbestos Policy is available on Council’s web site at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au in the Building & Development section or a copy can be obtained from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

§  It is the responsibility of the persons undertaking demolition work to obtain the relevant WorkCover licences and permits.

 

A10    Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A11    Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

For further information about preventing falls from windows and balconies refer to www.health.nsw.gov.au/childsafety or pick-up a brochure from Council’s Customer Service Centre.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Executive Report for 263 - 269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

2.

DA Compliance Report - 263 - 269 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

  


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D20/15

 

 

Subject:                  3 Pardey Street, Kingsford (DA/57/2015)

Folder No:               DA/57/2015

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                 New front carport and front boundary fence

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               The Design Hunter Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Ms C Ferreira & Mr S Orfanos

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview35729.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

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

 

Demolition

·        Removal of existing front balcony floor, roof and front wall;

·        Removal of front fence;

·        Removal of shrubs from western portion of front yard.

 

Construction

·        Construction of carport to the boundary line with tiled roof;

·        Construction of hardstand car parking space in front setback;

·        Construction of new front fence, with an increase in height and installation of slats in upper portion.

 

Site

The property, number 3 Pardey Street, Kingsford is a single storey free standing dwelling on the southern side of Pardey Street. The site area is 407.3m², the 118.2m² dwelling sits to the front of the site and provides adequate private open space to the rear. The neighbouring property to the east is a single storey dwelling of similar size with approval for a car port in the front setback and the property to the west is also a similar design.

 

3 PARDEY

Figure 1: 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 application was placed on exhibition for 14 days, with the last date for public submissions being 26 February 2015, two submissions were received.

 

The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·           No. 1 Pardey Street, Kingsford

·           No. 7 Pardey Street, Kingsford (owner of 5 Pardey Street)

 

Issues

Comments

Boundary encroachment

According to a Survey Plan by Watson Buchan Consulting Surveyors, the existing front fence pier is partially on number 5 Pardey Street. (See below)

 

Integrity of Boundary Pier

The fence pier between number 1 and 3 Pardey Street predominantly sits on number 1. The development proposes to demolish half of the pier. This may undermine the structural integrity of the pier which is also the structural pier for the side fence. (See Below)

 

Key Issues

 

·             Car parking space

In accordance with Council’ Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP) a single carport is permissible if there is no alternative location it does not adversely affect the visual amenity, risk pedestrian safety or require significant landscaping elements. Carports should have a maximum 3m width and height, and a minimum 5.4m length. This assessment confirms that the proposed car port meets the controls due to limited alternative locations, as well as being safe and visually consistent with a number of other carports in the street. Additionally, the carport meets the development controls of the DCP.

 

·             Boundary encroachment and structural integrity of pier

The Survey Plan indicates that the exiting pier to the north east corner of the fence is primarily on the property of number 5 Pardey Street. The development proposes to demolish part of the pier and construct a new pier on the site. Given the pier and side fence is predominantly on the property of number 5, Council cannot authorise its demolition and reconstruction without the consent of the adjoining owner. As such a suitable condition is included in the recommendation restricting any works to this pier to be wholly within the property boundaries of the subject site.

 

Similarly, demolition of half of the front fence pier to the corner adjoining 1 Pardey Street may negatively impact on the structural integrity of the pier, which also appears to be connected to the side boundary fence. Demolition of the front pier, shared with number 1 Pardey Street must not impact on the structural integrity of the pier, and any work to the pier should be wholly within the boundary of 3 Pardey Street, Kingsford. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

 


Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Two (2) submissions were received during the exhibition process. The matters raised in the submissions relate to concerns over the boundary line and the structural integerity of the existing piers.  These issues have been addressed as conditions of consent.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs.  Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No. DA/57/2015 may be supported.

 

 

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/57/2015 for alterations and additions to the front of the existing dwelling house including construction of a new hard stand car space, car port and front fence, at No. 3 Pardey Street, Kingsford, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Nonstandard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     Any work to the front pier, shared with number 1 Pardey Street, must not impact on the structural integrity of the pier, and be wholly within the boundary of No. 3 Pardey Street, unless written consent is obtained from the owner of No. 1 Pardey Street, allowing the reconstruction of the pier.

 

b.     Any works to the front pier, shared with number 5 Pardey Street, and construction of a new pier, must be wholly within the boundary of No. 3 Pardey Street, unless written consent is obtained from the owner of No. 5 Pardey Street, allowing reconstruction of the pier.

 

c.     The upper two thirds of the front boundary fence must be at least 30% open in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan.

 

Design Alignment levels

9.       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, shall be:

 

·      Western pedestrian access - Match the existing boundary level

·      29.20m AHD at the vehicular crossing

·      Eastern Pedestrian access – match existing boundary level.

 

The design alignment levels 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 0906.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Pardey Street, Kingsford

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D21/15

 

 

Subject:                  198-202 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/901/2014)

Folder No:               DA/901/2014

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                 Authorise the use of the partially constructed pergola, construction of new elements of the partially constructed pergola and use as a garden with associated landscaping works

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Tony Khan

Owner:                    G and R Mauric

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of the General Manager in the interests of transparency and accountability.

 

1.       Proposal

 

The subject application proposes the following:

 

·          Authorise the use of the constructed pergola 10.36m x 10.4m and 3.17m in height;

·          Partial demolition of the pergola along the southern elevation, creating a 900mm setback;

·          Demolition of the unauthorised northern timber frame;

·          Construction of 1.3m walls along the northern and western elevations;

·          Use of the area as a garden;

·          Associated landscaping works inside and surrounding the pergola.

 

Additional information was received on 10 February 2015 which clarified the following:

 

·          The proposal does not seek to use the proposed pergola and garden for additional outdoor dining or as a waiting area for patrons. No patrons will be utilising or accessing the proposed area.

 

Amended plans were received on 20 February 2015 which clarified the following:

 

·          Works as executed plans (showing extent of unauthorised works);

·          Amended site plan and elevation plans delineating the unauthorised works, works to be demolished and proposed works not yet undertaken.

 

Image 1: Existing subject site

Image 2: Extract of proposed site plan

 

2.       The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot B in DP 102175, No. 198-202 Marine Parade, Maroubra. It has a total area of 570 sqm and is generally level throughout the site.

 

The site is currently improved with a single storey restaurant with footway dining and rear outdoor dining. A partially constructed unauthorised pergola has been constructed at the rear of the site measuring 10.36m x 11.06m and 3.17m in height.

 

The locality is characterized by a mix of commercial premises and residential flat buildings. Immediately south of the site is the Maroubra Seals Club, to the north is a four-storey residential flat building and Maroubra Bay Garage. At the rear of the site is a right of way which runs along the rear of the previously mentioned sites and links with Fenton Avenue. Residential development is also located along the rear of the site, with a mix of dwelling houses and two storey residential flat buildings fronting Fenton Avenue. Commercial development exists along nearby McKeon Street and towards the end of Fenton Avenue. The subject site faces Maroubra Beach.

 

Image 3: Unauthorised pergola structure as viewed from the right of way located at the rear of the site.

Image 4: Existing rear slab area with unauthorised pergola supporting posts.

Image 5: View of the pergola from inside the approved outdoor dining area.

 

3.       Relevant Site History

 

CDC/61/2014: Approval granted 19/3/2014 by Certis Building Certification for fitout of the existing tenancy for the use as a restaurant (indoor use only).

 

LA/524/2014: Approval granted 8/4/2014 pursuant to the Roads Act for footway dining containing 16 seats, four tables, umbrellas and heaters.

 

BC/41/2014: Building Certificate issued 17/7/2014 for the constructed mechanical ventilation system located on the roof of the single storey brick shop with concrete roof.

 

DA/186/2014: Approval granted 22/7/2014 for internal fitout and use of the premises as a restaurant (indoor and outdoor) with the following hours of operation:

 

·      Indoor:                   Mondays to Saturdays 7am to 11pm and;

Sundays 7am to 10pm

 

·      Outdoor dining:      Mondays to Saturdays 7am to 10pm and;

Sundays 7am to 9.30pm

 

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. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

1.     3/1 Fenton Avenue, Maroubra

·          Noise

 

See further discussion below under ‘Key Issues – Noise’.

 

·          Unauthorised works

 

See further discussion below. However it is noted that the objectors concerns also fall outside the scope of the subject application and have been responded to under separate cover by the Director of City Planning and Manager of Health, Building and Regulatory Services.

 

·          Use as a Beer Garden and Markets advertised

This issue was raised with the applicant and clarified that the subject application does not seek approval for use as a beer garden, outdoor dining area or markets. The applicant was advised that separate development consent must be obtained for such uses.

 

·          Rear of Bazara an eyesore for adjoining residents

Noted.

 

2.     Owners Corporation - 1A Fenton Avenue, Maroubra

·          Noise report errors

The error raised by the objector in relation to the discrepancy within the report of ‘laserlite polycarbonate’ 1.3m walls to be utilised as opposed to the ‘timber frame’ has been rectified and amended plans received. It is noted that the report describes the proposed northern and western walls as follows:

 

The proposed 3.2-metre high pergola/garden … will have a 1.3-metre high, 8-millimetre thick, Laserlite Polycarbonate wall on the two sides…’

       

These amendments have been indicated on the revised plans.

 

·          The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects incorrectly/inaccurately assumes patronage of families with a low noise output.

Noted.

 

·          Privacy

The proposed pergola and garden do not raise the ground level and maintain the existing relationship.

 

·          Open Space

The objector has raised a concern that the proposal does not create any open space to the rear of the subject site in accordance with Part D7 – Maroubra Beach Centre DCP 2013.

 

Part D7 – Maroubra Beach Centre seeks to development a commercial centre with a new public square, primarily through the consolidation of sites. D7 primarily functions through the redevelopment of a site.

 

The subject proposal does not seek to redevelop the site, and the envisaged public square has not yet been created. The proposal is solely located within the subject site and the proposed development is not considered to significantly hinder future development.

 

·          Comments relating to DA/186/2014 and DA/592/2014

The complaints received do not relate to the subject development application.

 

·          Noise

See further discussion below under ‘Key Issues – Noise’.

 

·          Unauthorised works

Concerns have been raised by the objector that Council has ignored the illegal works from the applicant. Council’s records indicate that the following action has been taken in relation to the unauthorised pergola (current tenant and applicant):

 

3 November 2014

Complaint received by Council regarding the unauthorised pergola.

10 November 2014

Following an investigation by Council’s Building Regulation & Compliance Section, a Notice of Intention was served on the owner and proprieter of the site requiring representations to be made to Council regarding the pergola.

20 November 2014

Correspondence received from the proprietor addressing the Notice of Intention served by Council.

26 November 2014

Proprietor further advised Council that a Building Certificate and Development Application would be lodged to obtain approval for the constructed works and approval for works required to complete the pergola and associated garden.

17 December 2014

Subject Development Application received to authorise the use of the unauthorised pergola and approval to complete the works to create a garden area.

 

·          Use as a Beer Garden and Markets

See above discussion.

 

·          Discussions between Applicant and Objector

These issues have been responded to under separate cover by the Director of City Planning and Manager of Health, Building and Regulatory Services.

 

5.       Key Issues

 

·          Noise

The applicant has advised that the proposed garden and pergola is not for use by the restaurant patrons and for viewing purposes only. A site inspection of the premises revealed that no barrier exists between the existing outdoor dining area and the proposed garden area. No barriers have been proposed and a plan of management has not been received with the subject application.

 

The objections received have raised concerns as to the noise impacts of the proposed garden. The acoustic report submitted proposal indicates that the proposed use as a garden will comply with the relevant measures within the New South Wales Industrial Noise Policy. It is likely that use as a ‘viewing garden’ would not generate any additional noise impacts.

 

However, as there is no physical separation between the proposed garden and existing outdoor dining area, it is anticipated that patrons or their children are likely to utilise the proposed garden area and thereby create additional noise impacts. The submitted acoustic report does not consider the acoustic impacts associated with use by the restaurant patrons or their children. Further, a plan of management has not been submitted to demonstrate how staff members would be able to efficiently monitor the outdoor area whilst also servicing patrons within the restaurant.

 

To comply with the submitted acoustic report, access to the garden would need to be restricted. Vigilant management would be required to ensure patrons did not enter the area and full compliance achieved to maintain the current acoustic impacts. The use of the garden area by patrons may detrimentally impact on the surrounding residential development, and the full extent of such has not been adequately addressed by the applicant.

 

The subject operation has received several noise complaints since the commencement of operations in 2014. It is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that they are able to effectively manage the premises and the acoustic impacts. The potential use of the garden area will further compound the existing noise complaints. It would be reasonable to assume that a garden would be used by patrons and without any form of physical barrier a condition restricting it’s use may have little utility.

 

Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed new garden area will be for viewing purposes only and without any accurate assessment indicating limitations to its use, the application should be refused.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development poses a number of concerns with respect to the objectives and performance requirements of the relevant planning controls. The proposed development will increase the intensity of the acoustic impacts from the existing restaurant use resulting in a detriment impact on the amenity of adjoining residents. It is considered that the applicant has not effectively demonstrated that these impacts can be mitigated.

 

The application is recommended for refusal, based on the reasons identified in the schedule contained in the attached Summary Report.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 901/2014 to authorise the use of the partially constructed pergola, construction of new elements of the partially constructed pergola and use as a garden with associated landscaping works at No. 198-202 Marine Parade, Maroubra for the following reasons:

 

Reasons for Refusal

1.        The proposed development fails to meet the objectives of the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the impact of the development does not protect the amenity of nearby residents.

 

2.        The proposed development has not demonstrated that an acceptable level of acoustic amenity will be maintained to neighbouring residential properties and fails to meet the objectives for acoustic privacy as set out in Part D7 Section 25 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 – Maroubra Beach Town Centre.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 192 - 202 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D22/15

 

 

Subject:                  225 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/583/2014)

Folder No:               DA/583/2014

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

 Proposal:                Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 4 storey mixed use development comprising of a a ground floor retail shop fronting Clovelly Road, 9 apartments on floors above and parking for 15 vehicles (variation to building height control)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Pti Architects

Owner:                    Mr A Hammer, Mr J Hammer

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

Description: http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview17599.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the estimated cost of proposal is more than $2 Million.

 

1.  Proposal

 

The proposal involved demolition of the existing residential dwelling and construction of a new 4 storey mixed use development comprising of a ground floor retail shop fronting Clovelly Road, 9 apartments and parking for 17 vehicles.

 

Specifically, the proposal is inclusive of the following:

 

        Demolition

·       Demolition of existing residential dwelling.

 

      Construction

·       Basement parking for 13 vehicles, and two garages for 4 vehicles accessed via the rear laneway;

·       Ground floor retail space fronting Clovelly Road;

·       Levels 1 to 3 – construction of 9 apartments (6 x 2 beds and 3 x 3 beds).

 

2.  Site

 

The site is located on the northern side of Clovelly Road and extends to the southern side of Susan Lane.  The nearest cross streets are Fern Street to the west and Barry Street to the east.

 

The site has a site area of 594.5m². The site frontage to Clovelly Road is 14.97m; and 15.035 to Susan Lane.  Side boundary dimensions are both 39.625.

 

The site slopes downhill approximately 2.5m from Susan Lane to Clovelly Road.  There is also a cross-fall of approximately 1m from west to east.

 

On-site vegetation is limited to a mature tree at the property frontage and domestic plantings across the site.

 

Vehicle access to the site is currently only available via Susan Lane to the rear.

 

Located on the site is a single storey detached timber clad dwelling with a freestanding garage in the rear yard.

 

The existing building is not heritage listed, it is however one of the early buildings along this section of Clovelly Road, dating from around 1890.  The dwelling is identified in the Statement of Heritage Impact as being of historical and aesthetic significance at a local level.

 

The neighbouring property to the west is a three storey residential flat building, with the upper levels setback from the street and retail at ground level. The front façade is locally listed heritage item no. I12. To the east of the site is a 4 storey mixed use development with retail at ground level and apartments above.

 

To the south of Clovelly Road are predominantly 2 storey buildings with ground floor retail and first floor residential accommodation. 

 

The predominant single storey detached built form to the north is separated from the site by Susan Lane.

 

Photo 1: Composite photo showing site in centre and neighbouring properties to east and west.

 

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. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·     97 Fern Street, Clovelly;

·     1/228 Clovelly Road, Clovelly;

·     220 – 220A Clovelly Road, Clovelly;

·     12/227-231 Clovelly Road, Clovelly; and

·     5/1A Mount Street, Coogee

 

Issues

Comments

Loss of natural light and overshadowing to the southern side of Clovelly Road

The shadow diagrams indicate there will be some loss of light to the southern side of Clovelly Road and footpath. This may impact the ground floor retail, but is unlikely to impact the upper level residential apartments. 

 

Loss of privacy to the southern dwellings as the developments balconies is directly adjacent to southern dwellings living areas.

In response the development has been amended by adding additional privacy screens and non-transparent glass to the balcony balustrades to each street frontage.

 

Loss of privacy to the northern dwellings as the developments northern balconies are adjacent to the living areas of the northern dwelling.

In response the development has been amended by adding additional privacy screens and non-transparent glass to the balcony balustrades to each street frontage.

 

Height and Bulk

Height - The development encroaches the height limit at two points. The encroachments are generally considered to be reasonable given the sloping site and minor nature of encroachments.

 

Bulk –The development has a similar bulk and scale to the neighbouring dwelling at number 227-231.  The use of lightweight glass balustrades, varying building materials and stepping in at the upper levels assist in reducing the bulk and scale of the development.

 

Dilapidation (229-231 Clovelly Road)

Excavation is required for the basement car parking, especially the northern side of the site. The basement excavation will be to the boundary. To ensure the structural integrity of neighbouring buildings are maintained appropriate conditions will be applied.  These include:

 

1.   A dilapidation report prepared by a professional must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of works.

2.   A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby buildings and heritage items.

Requirement for additional power lines

The requirement for power lines is decided by the power supply authority. Notwithstanding, new buildings are usually served by one cable.

 

4.  Key Issues

 

4.1     Request to vary development standard

The proposal contravenes the maximum height standard and maximum floor space ratio (FSR) contained in clause 4.3 and 4.4 of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed variations is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.3 Height

12

12.325m

No

2.7%

4.4 Floor space Ratio

1.5:1

1.523:1

No

1.5%

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

(i)    the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by 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.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justification is generally in accordance with the Department of Planning and Infrastructures’ Varying Development Standards: A Guide. The justification for each variation can be found in the table below.

 

The applicant’s written justification indicate the following key arguments for variation to the standard:

Height

•       The site is situated in the “B1” zone of the Randwick LEP Height of Buildings Map, which sets a maximum building height of 12m and a maximum wall height of 10.5m.

•       The proposal complies with the 10.5m max wall requirement

•       Also we comply with the 2700 floor to ceiling height requirement by the DCP

•       However being there is a considerable slope on the site of more than 2m front to back and more than 1m across the site, there are some areas proposed that are over this height line.

•       The main area over this height is the roof of the northern building which previously we had sloped to minimise this non-compliance, but being there is no negative affection from raising it by the amount proposed the SEPP65 Design Review Committee recommended that we make this a flat roof which the proposal now incorporates.

•       For the southern building the area of non-compliance is very small (less than 200mm at the highest point) and again is also caused by the cross-fall on the site.

•       As these non-compliances have no over-shadowing or other negative impact on any of the neighbours or buildings nearby, we submit that adhering to the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary and hence we ask that this be variation be accepted.

Floor Space Ratio

•      The site currently under the Randwick LEP Floor Space Ratio Map has a maximum floor space ratio of 1.5:1.

•      The Floor Space provided in our DA submission is 905sqm which is 14sqm over the 1.5:1 stated FSR.

•      This is a variation of 1.5% on the standard.

•      We submit that strict adherence to the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary being :

•      The additional area has come from making the retail area deeper and hence larger as specifically requested by the SEPP65 Design Review Committee (by some 20sqm) and this has served only to make the car parking area smaller and as such this additional FSR is not contributing at all to the bulk of the building.

•      Further as the apartments are already at a minimum in terms of their internal areas, reducing these is not desirable in terms of the amenity of the apartments for the occupants, and even if we did it would not reduce the overall perceived bulk of the building as it would only marginally reduce their depth.

So being the variation is so small and has no impact on the surrounding buildings at all, adhering to the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, and hence we ask that this be variation be accepted.

 

It would be unreasonable and unnecessary to require strict compliance for the following reasons:

 

·          The proposed bulk and scale represents a minor encroachment on the permissible height limit. Therefore the proposal has a similar bulk and scale to the surrounding development;

·          The proposal complies with most of the height requirements, having only 2 minor encroachments;

·          The Statement of Heritage Impact verifies that the height will not have a negative impact on the heritage item;

·          The encroachment is minor and therefore the development will not result in a negative impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

The neighbouring property to the west is a three storey residential flat building, with the upper levels setback from the street and retail at ground level. The front façade is locally listed heritage item no. I12.

 

Section 4 of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 contains the following comments in relation to development affecting Heritage Items and Contributory Buildings:

 

“Contributory buildings should be retained. Original fabric should be conserved, new work should be sensitive, and neighbouring development should be sympathetic to their character. “Facadism” (the retention of only the outer skin of a building) is not acceptable as suitable conservation practice.”

 

Having regard to purpose of the standards of the proposal is considered acceptable. The proposed new development is sensitive to the neighbouring development, in terms of form and scale. In this regard, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with the desired future character of the locality, despite the non-compliance (objective a).

 

•          the proposal does not unreasonably impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land, in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views, as follows:

 

o    the proposal does not create any significant or unreasonable visual bulk. The use of a combination of quality building materials, stepping back the upper levels from the zero street frontage and the use of lightweight balustrading contributes to a well-designed and appropriately articulated building.

o    the building is orientated towards Clovelly Road and Susan Lane with minimal opportunity for viewing across side boundaries.

o    The site has a north-south orientation with the majority of the proposed units receiving direct sunlight to living area, including during mid-winter. The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that shadows from proposed development will be predominantly cast over Clovelly Road.  Dwellings located opposite the site, on the southern side of Clovelly Road, will continue to receive adequate levels of sunlight. Strict compliance with the 12m building height standard would have no benefit in terms of improving solar access to nearby properties.

o    There are no known views or vistas which will be affected by the proposal (objective c).

 

In this regard, the proposal meets the objectives of Clause 4.3 and 4.4 of LEP 2012, despite the non-compliance and the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standards in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

The proposal has been carefully designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality ad to fit in with the scale and character of development in the immediate context, whilst minimizing 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.

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (B1 Neighbourhood Centre) are:

 

a)   To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

b)   To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

c)   To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives, as follows:

 

•       the proposal incorporates a small scale retail premises, which will cater to the needs of people who live or work in the neighbourhood (objective a);

•       the proposed residential apartments are integrated with the retail premises and will provide housing within an established neighbourhood centre (objective b);

•       the proposal incorporates high quality architecture and urban design. The quality and design will ensure that the proposed development contributes to the amenity of the local streetscape and pedestrian amenity will be maintained, with the proposed new shop front;

•       the proposal will not cause adverse amenity impacts in terms of overshadowing or privacy; and will not unreasonably impact on residential development in neighbouring zones.

 

In this regard, the proposal meets the objectives of the zone, despite the non-compliance with Clause 4.3 and 4.4 of LEP 2012.

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 the B2 Local centre zone.

 

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

(vi)      Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable Height and FSR standards 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. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the built forms envisaged under the LEP for the site and locality.

 

4.2     Front, rear and Side Setbacks

The DCP requires the following front setbacks:

 

·        Zero setback for development fronting a primary road, up to 9.5m in building height; or

·        2m setback for development fronting a primary road, above 9.5m in building height.

 

The proposed development provides a zero front setback for the ground floor retail premises and upper level balustrades. The upper level facades are setback 2.1m.

 

The zero front setback to the ground floor retail premises is consistent with the DCP requirement and zero front setbacks on neighbouring land.

 

The stepping back of the upper levels of the building 2.1m is generally compliant with Council requirements.  The zero setback of the balustrades is generally consistent with the built form to the east.

 

Where the site has rear lane access, car parking structures (hardstand cars pace, carport or garage) and ancillary development must have a 1m minimum setback from the rear boundary.  The proposed rear setback is 1.0m to the balcony balustrade and 3.1m to the façade.

 

The proposed zero boundary setback is consistent with the DCP control of providing a zero metre side setback, where the site’s side boundary adjoins land in a business zone.

 

4.3     Heritage

A Statement of Heritage Impact was prepared by Rappoport Heritage Consultants. The Statement concludes:

 

“Rappoport is satisfied that the proposal would have minimal impact on the cultural significance of the adjacent heritage item and would be compatible generally with the Streetscape of the Clovelly neighbourhood centre”.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner provided comments based on the Statement of Heritage Impact and confirmed that the development is acceptable from a heritage viewpoint, subject to the application of appropriate conditions of consent.  Refer to the non-standard conditions in the recommendation.

 

4.4     Privacy

Windows and balconies are orientated to the front and rear of the site. Screening and non-transparent glass has been used on the front and rear balcony to improve privacy including for neighbouring properties to the north and south.

 

Accordingly, the proposal will not cause any adverse privacy impacts.

 

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 resulting from this development.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject land is located within Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre pursuant to the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The proposed development, being demolition to the exisitng dwelling and construction of a four storey medium density residential building with nine apartments and basement car parking and garages for 17 cars. The development is permissible within the zone with development consent.

 

Five (5) submission were received during the exhibition process. The matters raised in the submission related to 1) overshadowing, 2) privacy, 3) bulk and scale and 4)  dilapidation on neighbouring dwellings.

 

1)     Overshadowing is considered reasonable given the shadow diagrams show the shadow only covered the road and the southern footpath of Clovelly Road.

2)     It is considered that the original scheme may have caused privacy impacts. Amendments have been made to the development to improve privacy of the neighbouring properties.

3)     The Statement of Heritage Significance considered the scale and bulk of the proposal to be comparable with adjacent development. The zero metre front setback is considered reasonable given it is consistent with neighbouring properties, the area is under transition and the ground level is retail. 

4)     The Conditions of Consent requires a construction management report and a dilapidation report prepared by suitably qualified professionals prior to the commencement of works.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council 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 and 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to height of buildings and floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 583/2014 for demolition of existing building and construction of four storey residential flat building and basement parking, at No. 225 Clovelly road, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Heritage

10.     A report shall be prepared by a professional engineer and submitted to the certifying authority prior to the issuing of a construction certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation, shoring or pile construction, including details of potential vibration emissions.  The report, must demonstrate the suitability of the proposed methods of construction to overcome any potential damage to nearby heritage items.

 

Any practices or procedures specified in the engineer’s report in relation to the avoidance or minimisation of structural damage to nearby premises, must be fully complied with and incorporated into the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

A copy of the engineers report is to be submitted to the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority.

 

11.     An archival recording of the property shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library. 

 

12.     A salvage plan shall be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The salvage plan is required to ensure that materials including fireplaces, architraves, skirtings, windows, doors and remnant components of significant heritage fabric are carefully removed and sold or donated to a heritage salvaging yard to facilitate the conservation of other buildings of a similar period. 

 

13.     An Interpretation Plan for the site is to be prepared and submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The recommendations of the Interpretation Plan are to be implemented in conjunction with the development.  The Interpretation Plan is to guide the design and content of an interpretative panel or other medium as appropriate, to be installed in the common area of the new building, describing the history of the site and the local area. 

 

14.     In the unlikely event that historical archaeological remains or deposits are exposed during the works, all work should cease while an evaluation of their potential extent and significance is undertaken and the NSW Heritage Office notified under the requirements of the Heritage Act.

 

Landscaping

31.     The development site is located in the Clovelly Road Commercial Centre. The applicant should provide a site specific Public Domain Plan.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 225 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D23/15

 

 

Subject:                  369 Arden Street, South Coogee (DA/723/2014)

Folder No:               DA/723/2014

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                        Alterations and additions to existing semi detached dwelling including new first floor

 

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Ms U B Krejci

Owner:                    Ms U B Krejci

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview37084.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillors Matson, Shurey, Neilson and Roberts. The assessment has also been the subject of a peer review by an external planning consultant due to issues raised by an objector about the processing of the application. A meeting was held with the objector after the Assemment report was finalised to discuss the amended proposal which lead to issues being raised about the process that should be followed in terms of the further matters being raised by the objector. The peer review (attached) has concluded that assessment has been undertaken in accordance with S79C of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

 

1.       Proposal

 

It is proposed to carryout alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling house including new first floor addition.

 

The ground floor alterations include demolition of walls, new open plan living area with kitchen, dining and lounge area, new laundry, new bathroom, new window and door openings and outdoor rear deck.

 

The proposed first floor level consists of 2 new bedrooms, lounge area, bathroom and a rear balcony off the lounge area.

 

Amended plans have been received by Council on two occasions.  On the first occasion the front setback was increased by 850mm on the first floor level to align with the neighbouring semi, the rear ground floor deck and first floor balcony was moved off from the northern side boundary not to encroach on the neighbouring property at No. 367 Arden Street and to be wholly within the subject site.  The amended plan was received by Council on 29 January 2015.

 

On the second occasion the overall height of the building was lowered by 437mm (from RL69.19 to RL68.752) to comply with the overall building height control of 9.5m in the DCP.  The height of the privacy screens to the first floor balcony was also reduced to 1.8m from the finished floor level.

 

The assessment is based on this amended plan, drawing No. DA1.01 and received by Council on 25 February 2015 and the current submitted plan, drawing No. DA1.02 received by Council on 23 October 2014.  This plan is subject to amendments to reflect the changes submitted to Council on 25 February 2015.

 

2.       Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Arden Street and is currently occupied by a single storey semi-detached dwelling with a basement to the rear.  The property is rectangular in shape with a frontage width of 6.16m to Arden Street and a depth of 30.72m.  The site has a total area of 187m² (as per survey).

 

The land has a significant fall across the site and the dwelling is located on a much higher level from the street frontage.  To the centre of the site the land falls in two directions with the land dropping towards the front of the site by approximately 2.25m and to the rear of the site by approximately 1.1m.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by low density residential development including primarily detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and neighbourhood shops. There is a four storey residential flat building within the vicinity of the site and; however, the predominant scale of development on surrounding sites varies between single storey and two stories in scale.  To the south of the subject site is the Randwick Cemetery. 

Figure 1:  The subject site and adjoining properties.

 

Figure 2: Rear view of the subject and adjoining semi at no. 367 Arden Street

 

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. The following submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

367 Arden Street, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Encroachment

The rear addition encroaches on the northern common boundary of the neighbouring land at no. 367 Arden Street.

 

The statement also indicates that the northern side boundary fence is retained.  This is contradicted in the drawing plans where the northern end of the proposed ground floor deck is to be masonry constructed requiring the removal of the existing fence between the properties.

Amended plans have been received indicating the rear addition being wholly within the subject site.  In relation to the common side boundary fence, it is likely that this fence will be removed as a result of the proposed rear additions.  However, replacement of the boundary fence is a matter which can be dealt with between the subject owner and adjoining property at no. 367 Arden Street under the The Dividing Fences Act 1991.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy concerns

The size of the proposed rear first floor balcony will impact on their amenity and privacy.

A condition is included requiring the rear first floor level to be reduced in depth to comply with the rear setback control.  This reduces the depth of the balcony and will address the amenity and privacy concerns raised by the objector.  Refer to Key Issues below which addresses privacy.

Front setback

The first floor addition is proposed to be constructed forward of the existing roof form and is not consistent with their approved first floor addition.

Amended plans have been received increasing the setback of the first floor level to align with the approved first floor addition at no. 367 Arden Street. Refer to Key Issues below which addresses additional provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings.

Rear setback

The proposed rear first floor balcony does not comply with the rear setback control in the DCP.

A condition is included requiring the rear first floor level to be reduced in depth to comply with the rear setback control. Refer to Key Issues below which addresses rear setback control.

Asbestos concerns

Concerns about the extent of asbestos and the absence of an asbestos survey.

In relation to the works carried out on the subject site appropriate conditions will be included to ensure all hazards and asbestos material are removed from the site in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·    Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements.

 

·    Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy.

 

§ Asbestos waste is stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005

 

In addition to the above, the applicant is required to clearly display a sign to the front of the property noting that the site involves the removal of asbestos and details of the licensed contractor.

 

Lack of details & Discrepancies

There is a lack of details and measurements submitted in the notification plans.

 

There are discrepancies between the notification plan and Statement of Environmental Effects.

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

 

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

 

Electrical concerns

The wires and electrical supply is currently located on the premises at no. 367 Arden Street. The DA does not address the electricity supply for 369 Arden street. 

The electrical safety requirements for electrical wiring are contained in the Service and Installation Rules of NSW, AS/NZS 3000 Wiring Rules. The owner or building contractor is required to comply with this standard during construction to ensure safe and satisfactory operation is maintained on the site.

Object to an additional side entrance at D2.

The proposed internal layout and additional side entry/exist to the southern side of the dwelling D2 suggest that the dwelling maybe uses in the future as dual occupancy.

The application is for a single occupancy house on the site.  A condition is included within the consent to ensure the premises is not used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

 

FSR & Site coverage

The FSR and site coverage appear to be incorrect.  Question whether the maximum height of the balcony from ground floor combined with the floor space of the balcony and veranda comply with the regulations.

The FSR and site coverage have been checked and are correct.  In any case sites less than 300m2 are assessed on merit.

 

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

 

In addition to the above, a meeting was held at Council on 6 March 2015 at the request of the above objector to discuss the amended proposal. Two additional concerns were raised, the first concern related to the void area between the rear balcony and northern common boundary fence which is directly adjacent to their laundry. Refer to figure 2 above.  The second concern related to whether a retaining wall was going to be constructed along the northern boundary to support the rear addition.

 

The void area arises from the rear ground floor addition not extending to meet the side wall of the neighbouring laundry. See figure 3. Left over spaces such as these are not uncommon in a suburban environment and are characteristic of small lots.  In relation to the retaining wall, conditions are already included within the report which requires retaining walls to be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings. Adequate provisions are also made for drainage.  The condition also requires details of proposed retaining walls, shoring, piling or other measures to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Figure 3: The void area between the rear deck and common boundary is shown in the red dashed line.

 

A further submission was received on the 12 March 2015 regarding the existing palm trees encroaching on their land which has been an ongoing obstacle preventing them replacing the paling fence to be built on the common boundary and therefore would like them removed.  Council Landscape officer has no objections to the removal of the palm trees and an appropriate condition is included within the consent requiring them to be removed.

 

Other issues discussed in this submission were in regards to the initial inaccurate plans affecting the entire assessment process and also they feel that they have not been given the opportunity to review the revised plans and discuss their concerns with the Planner.

 

The issues raised in the objector’s submissions have been addressed in the report and an amended plan has been received resolving the issue regarding the encroachment of the rear additions and boundary fence.  The objector was contacted and also plans were sent via text to show the changes made.  As a result a meeting was held with the objector on 6 March 2015 and the amendments and issues raised by the objectors where discussed in detail.  Further, Council is not required to re-notify the plans as the amendments are minor and do not result in additional amenity impacts to the adjoining neighbours properties.

 

4.       Key Issues

 

4.1   Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Part B7: Transport, Traffic, parking and access

Sub-clause - 3.2 Vehicle Parking Rates

The parking rate for a dwelling house with 3 or more bedrooms is 2 off-street parking spaces, whereas the proposed 4 bedroom dwelling will not provide any off-street parking spaces.

 

It is noted that site constraints are such that off-street parking cannot be provided within the site without substantially altering the design of the existing semi.  The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the control in the DCP; and given that the proposal will not generate an unreasonably high demand for additional parking in the locality, the deficiency can be supported.  Further, there is convenient access to public transport, on-street parking in the vicinity of the site and on nearby side streets.

 

Part C1:  Low Density Residential

Sub-Clause 3.2 - Floor Space Ratio

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

 

The subject site has a land area of 187m².  The Randwick LEP 2012 requires that for lot sizes less than 300m², FSR is assessed on merit. The proposed FSR on the site is 0.82:1 or 155.8m².

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

The proposed maximum building height of the dwelling is 9.5m, which complies with the 9.5m maximum height standard set out in the RLEP 2012. The DCP stipulates that the maximum external wall height must not exceed 8m for sloping site.  The subject site to the centre of the site falls in two directions with the land dropping towards the front of the site by approximately 2.25m and to the rear of the site by approximately 1.1m.

 

The proposed external wall height along the southern boundary varies from 5.95m to 8.1m due to the drop in the land.  The portion of the wall height that is over the 8m wall height control for sloping site is centralised to front section of the first floor addition and only spans for a distance of 2 metres.  The remaining portion of the external wall height complies with the control.

 

Based upon the above, the proposed variation is considered reasonable in this instance, given it eventuates as a result of falling topography. Subject to conditions, the subject variation results in minimal environmental impact of bulk and scale, shadow or privacy. Further, the proposed scale of the building will remain sympathetic to the character of the streetscape.

The proposal is supported in respect of the provisions of Section 3.2 of the DCP.

 

Sub-Clause 3.3 - Setbacks

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Rear setbacks- Section 3.3.3

Controls

i)      The minimum rear setback must be 25% of allotment depth or 8m/ whichever is the lesser.

 

Note: Rear setback controls do not apply to corner allotments.

 

ii)     Provide increased rear setbacks over and above the aforementioned minimum requirements/ or demonstrate that this is not required/ having regard to the following matters:

 

·      Existing predominant rear setback line in the subject urban block.

·      The need to achieve reasonable view sharing with the neighbouring dwellings

·      and the public domain.

·      The need to adequately protect the privacy and solar access to the

·      neighbouring dwellings.

 

iii)    Garages/ carports/ outbuildings/ swimming or spa pools/ above-ground water tanks/ and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback/ in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions of this DCP.

 

iv)    For irregularly shaped allotments/ or allotments with the longest boundary abutting the street or the rear adjoining neighbour (that is/ the frontage width being longer than the site depth)/ the rear setback will be assessed on merit having regard to demonstration of the following:

 

·      Compatibility with the existing development pattern in the subject and adjoining urban blocks.

·      Provision of adequate private open space with dimensions compliant with the requirements of this DCP.

·      Potential impacts on the neighbouring dwellings in terms of solar access/privacy and view sharing.

 

The proposed outdoor deck and balcony to the rear of the dwelling will result in a setback of 5.391m from the ground and first floor level not complying with the minimum 7.5m rear setback control for a site depth of 30.72m.  There are no objections to the ground floor being setback 5.391m from the rear boundary as the noncompliant section will not eventuate in any unreasonable impacts in terms of bulk and scale, privacy or shadow to neighbouring properties as assessed in, the relevant sections of this report. When considered on balance with a compliant scheme, there are minimal additional environmental impacts resulting from the proposed setback variations. 

 

However, the first floor balcony may result in amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties in terms of solar access to the neighbouring dwelling at no. 371-373 Arden Street and privacy given its attachment to the lounge area.  For this reason it is recommended that the balcony be reduced in size to allow for a setback of 7.5m from the rear boundary, this will result in the balcony to have a depth of 1.016m and will comply with the rear setback control. 

 

There is a semi-mature, 6m tall Persea americanna (Avocado) located to the rear of the dwelling near the proposed works, and it is not possible to retain this tree whilst proceeding with the ground floor rear extension and first floor in this same area.  Refer to Council’s landscape comments that support the removal of this rear tree.

 

Provided the above recommendation is meet the proposal is considered to have minimised environmental impacts and are reasonable within regard to the context of the site satisfying the controls objectives in the DCP.

 

Sub-Clause 4.2 - Additional Provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings

The proposed additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling is supported as the amended design shows the first floor addition being setback at least 8.35m from the front boundary to align with the approved setback on the neighbouring attached semi under DA/577/2012.  The proposed design maintains the roof form and single profile of the semi’s towards the front of the dwelling which respects the character of the semi’s and reduces the dominance of the addition.

 

The first floor addition is constructed on the common wall boundary with the adjoining semi; however, part of the wall/roof is setback 850mm from the common wall boundary to allow northern light into the rooms.  While the approved roof design of the adjoining semi at no. 367 Arden Street differs to the proposed development, the amended roof design is considered acceptable as it will allow northern light which is promoted in the DCP.  Also, the height, bulk and form of the first floor addition is generally similar to that of neighbouring dwellings in the street; and therefore, will not detract from the overall character of the existing semi-detached dwellings.

 

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

 

Sub-section 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

Solar access to neighbouring development:

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal will increase the amount of the overshadowing to the southern adjoining property; however, the degree of the impact is acceptable when consideration is given to the orientation of the site and the context of development in the surrounding area.

 

The expectation that solar access to private open spaces and habitable spaces be preserved is supported by Council.  However, it is noted that the orientation of the lots in an east-west orientation does not provide a suitable environment for the retention of sunlight particularly to the north facing habitable windows.  As such, the expectation to preserve sunlight would be dependent upon the development form and scale.

 

In this case the solar access to the rear yards of the subject site and adjoining properties will receive the required solar access. The subject site and adjoining properties will receive the required solar access to their rear yards between 8am to 12pm in June.  However, the north facing windows to the neighbouring property at no. 371-373 Arden Street will be fully shaded between 8am to 4pm in June not complying with the control. 

 

Whilst the proposed development will result in partial non-compliance with the solar access controls of the DCP, the impact is considered to be acceptable when considering the proposal complies with the FSR & building height standards in the LEP and side setback controls in the DCP, meets the objectives of the external wall height control; the reasonableness of the development; the unfavourable orientation of the allotments in respect to preservation of solar access; and the context of the built form in the surrounding area.  In addition, a condition is included which requires the rear setback to be increased to 7.5m on the first floor level to meet the rear setback control.  This will slightly improve solar access to the rear yards on the subject and adjoining site.

 

In addition, the proposal incorporates a good passive solar design that maximises solar access into the living and bedrooms through implementation of windows along the northern side of the dwelling.

 

Given the severe constraints of the site, particularly noting the narrowness and small site area, the proposal is acceptable in general terms in respect to bulk, scale, mass & proportion. The numerical non-compliances with the DCP are not borne from a less skilful design, but rather, a design that is seeking to provide an appropriate level of internal amenity for the future occupants of the dwelling.  It is deemed therefore that the proposal is designed within the constraints of the site and any adverse impacts to solar access for adjoining properties is primarily a result of the orientation of the site rather than the inconsistencies with the relevant controls of the DCP.

 

The proposal will not be impact future solar collectors to neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed development will comply with the above DCP objectives and controls.

 

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

Objective

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

·       Front or rear of the allotment;

·       Side courtyard.

 

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

 

Subject to conditions, it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. The window and door openings to the eastern and western elevations will predominately overlook the rear yard of the subject site and street, respectively.  Privacy walls and screens to the sides of the rear balconies also assists in minimising direct overlooking to neighbouring sites.

 

To the southern and northern elevations on the first floor level the openings are highlight windows with sill heights of at least 1.6m which restricts overlooking into neighbouring properties.

 

Suitable privacy wall and screen is proposed to the ends of the rear ground floor deck which minimises direct overlooking to neighbouring sites.

 

However, the first floor balcony may result in privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties given its attachment to the lounge area.  It was recommended above to meet the rear setback control that the balcony be reduced in size; this will result in the balcony to have a depth of 1.016m.  Given, the size of the balcony is reduced this limits the use of the area for recreation purposes.  To the ends of the balcony the wall and screen is suitable in height to maintain reasonable levels of privacy between the properties.

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

 

The site is located within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific zoning objectives, in that the development will deliver a semi-detached dwelling, which will protect the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives and controls contained in Comprehensive DCP for Low Density Residential.

 

Subject to conditions, the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of solar access, view loss and privacy. An adequate level of amenity will be retained for the surrounding residents and the public domain.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/723/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing semi detached dwelling including new first floor level at No. 369 Arden Street, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Nonstandard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The rear setback of the first floor addition shall be increased to 7.5m from the rear boundary to comply with the rear setback control of the DCP 2013.  This will result in the first floor balcony to have a depth of 1.016m.

 

b.     The sections detailed in drawing DA1.02 received by Council on 23 October 2014 shall be amended to reflect the changes submitted to Council on 25 February 2015.

 

c.     Prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate, the BASIX Certificate shall be amended to reflect the approved plans.

 

Tree Management

31.     Approval is granted for removal of the following:

 

a.       The semi-mature Persea americanna (Avocado) growing centrally in the rear yard, adjacent the rear access stairs, so as to accommodate works associated with the ground floor extension and first floor in this same area as shown;

 

b.       Those most western Archontophoenix cunninghamiana (Bangalow Palms) in the group that are planted in the rear yard, along the northern site boundary, only where necessary to accommodate the works.

 

Note: The approval provided at point ‘b’ above has been included following receipt of written approval from the neighbour/tree owner at no.367, confirming that they are satisfied for these palms to be removed as part of the DA works within no.369.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 369 Arden Street, South Coogee

Included under separate cover

2.View

Peer Review Report - 369 Arden Street, South Coogee

 

 

 

 


Peer Review Report - 369 Arden Street, South Coogee

Attachment 2

 

 





Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D24/15

 

 

Subject:                  29 Park Avenue, Randwick (DA/855/2014)

Folder No:               DA/855/2014

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 1 part 2 storey dwelling house, rear swimming pool, front double garage, associated site and landscaping works.

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Ms A L Balding

Owner:                    Ms A L Balding

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

Demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 1 part 2 storey dwelling house, rear swimming pool, front double garage, associated site and landscaping works.

 

Amended application: The applicant has amended their application in the following manner:

 

·      Reduction in width of the proposed double garage and widening of the pedestrian entry to minimise the area of garage across the site

·      A response letter to submissions received (including a response from authors of the geotechnical report to the geotechnical review received as part of a submission)

·      Remove the privacy screen at the front.

·      Show the entry level at No. 27 Park Avenue and its relationship with the proposed development on the subject site

·      A submission from the authors of the geotechnical report submitted with the application responding to the submission made on behalf of the adjoining property

·      An amended Statement of environmental effects addressing the proposed development against Part C1 of the Development Control Plan 2013.

 

A final set of plans have been received by council on 19 March 2015 and are the subject of assessment. These were not required to be notified as it was considered that they did result in any additional amenity impacts.

 

Site history:

Previous applications submitted for development on the site include:

Development No.

Description

Determination

BA/756/1994

Alterations and additions to dwelling

Approved 12 August 1994

BA/1346/1997

Alterations including attic, garage and fence

Approved 8 April 1998

DA/586/2004

New double garage, front fence and cellar

Approved on 9 September 2004

DA/1096/2004

Alterations and first floor additions. Note reduction in bulk and scale of development in order to minimise the loss of solar access to the north facing windows of No. 31 Park Avenue

Approved by the Court on 21 April 2006

DA/128/2005

Partially in-ground pool & decking

Approved on 17 May 2005

DA/637/2007

Demolition of existing terraced dwelling and construction of new two storey terrace, excavate double garage at front with landscape roof terrace and swimming pool at rear.

Approved 16 October 2007

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Park Avenue between Gilderthorpe Avenue and Hooper Street in Randwick and is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 9.215m, a side boundary depth of 40.75m and has an overall site area of 389.3m².  Neighbouring the property to the north is a detached two storey dwelling, to the south is a single storey dwelling (part of a row of attached dwellings) and to the rear is a residential flat building of more than two stories. The surrounding area is low and medium density residential in character and consists predominantly of dwellings and residential flat buildings. An aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area is provided on the page 1 of this report.

Photo 1: Street view of the subject site and neighbouring properties at No. 27 Park Avenue (at left) and the dwelling at No. 31 Park Avenue (at right) whose northern side wall shown in the photo (located on the southern side boundary).

Photo 2: Frontal view of the row of attached dwellings located south of the subject site from 31 Park Avenue to 35 Park Avenue. It is noted that these attached dwellings are not heritage items and nor are they within a Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Photo 3: Two properties north of the subject site showing garage with terrace over located at the front of the property at No 25 and the large wall at the front of No. 27 Park Avenue (from left to right). Note: The white modern garage with terrace over at 25 Park Avenue, with the traditional dwelling remaining intact behind.

 

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:

 

27 Park Avenue, Randwick

Issue

Comment

Excessive excavation depth and proximity to side boundaries. Geotechnical report does not assess the plant room - located alongside the dwelling, has the potential to result in subsidence of the subject property

Noted, see key issues section under Earthworks. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

Dwelling house and garage above floor level will have a nil setback from the northern side boundary resulting in a wall height in excess of 3m.

Noted, see key issues section relating to side setbacks and earthworks section relating to the northern wall. In brief it is considered that this wall is adjacent to the neighbour’s entry stairs and will have a maximum height of approximately 2.25m and not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impacts on the use of this part of the neighbour’s property.

The elevated terrace will result in adverse privacy impacts on this neighbours front yard and patio

The privacy screen located along the northern side of the terrace has been removed from the application on the basis that the outlook is generally onto a front yard of the neighbour’s site which is not a private open space area. Further, the proposed front terrace is associated with a bedroom - a low use room. The setback of trafficable area provided by the planter box is sufficient for the purposes of privacy protection.

Rear building alignment is impinged upon

Whilst the proposed ground level extends 500mm beyond the rear elevation of the neighbour’s property, the proposed rear setback complies with Councils DCP controls. It is not considered that the appearance of this 500mm extension will present an obtrusive element when viewed from the neighbours paved area at the rear. Further still, the rear building line varies amongst buildings north of the subject site.

Impact of garage on streetscape due to non-complying setbacks, location, height and configuration.

See key issues section under Car parking and access. In brief, where non-compliance with DCP controls occur, the proposed garage is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives under the DCP.

Inadequate information given the existing site conditions and the nature of neighbouring buildings ability to withstand the scale of works

See key issues section Earthworks.

 

31 Park Avenue Randwick

Issue

Comment

Application should be assessed against Part C1 low density development

The applicant submitted an amended Statement of Environmental Effects addressing DCP controls for low density development.

The proposed front setback does not comply and there is no transitional area that would permit the proposed front setback.

See key issues below.

Does not comply with the side setback controls

Noted, See key issue section below relating to front and side setbacks. In brief, despite the nil setback from the southern side boundary, a good planning outcome is achieved in both improving solar access to certain parts of the neighbours northern elevation, and redistributing the floor area further away from the side boundary shared with the neighbours property minimising visual impacts.

The proposal does not comply with the primary parking requirements under the DCP or those that permit parking at the front. Provision of parking at the rear would allow for more deep soil and less bulk at the front.

The parking is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives for car parking and access. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are some differences in the layout of proposed development compared with that of No. 25 Park Avenue (frontage width of 9.96m), having particular regard to provision of deep soil area, it is not considered that these differences are grounds for refusal of the garage given that the application has been suitably designed with complying levels of deep soil area within the site (as amended) and the planter boxes at the front will serve to soften the expanse of garage across the front of the subject site. See key issues section under Car parking and access.

 

The subject site does not enjoy a formal right of carriageway at the rear and therefore the neighbours recommendations for parking at the rear is not a relevant matter for consideration.

The depth of excavation exceeds the 1m maximum under the DCP. I do not understand how Council can approve the current application without requiring at the very least a geotechnical survey based upon the DA plans as lodged (or amended). I would consent to such expert (s) inspecting my property.

The geotechnical report submitted is sufficient to allow a proper assessment of the proposal for the purposes of issuing development consent. Matters relating to detailed structural design are required to be addressed at Construction Certificate stage. Suitable conditions are imposed requiring the protection of adjoining land as part of any excavation.

The DA does not comply in relation to site coverage.

The proposed development complies with the site coverage controls under Part C1 of the DCP 2013

Removal of significant trees and associated amenity. The proposed development does not make provisions for deep soil planting.

The original application fell short of the deep soil area within the site. It is noted that the architect has amended their application providing additional deep soil area at the rear of the property between the pool and rear boundary. In relation to the removal of trees, a condition is included requiring a suitable replacement tree be provided within the rear lawn of the site.

Asbestos in the rear garage

Standard conditions requiring the safe removal of any asbestos within the existing structures or ground within the site are included.

Overbearing bulk and scale will detract from the Victorian terraces.

The proposed development is of a contemporary design that displays sensitivity to the massing and proportions of the neighbouring Victorian terraces.

The applicant relies on the DA approved in 2007 which contains less intrusive levels and areas of excavation.

 

Geotechnical report does not address the rainwater tank.

 

 

The cost of works is not realistic

This application has been assessed on its merits and against the applicable controls that are now in place. 

                      

 

 

A suitable condition is included requiring sufficient investigation prior to any demolition and or excavation.

 

A suitable condition is included requiring a quantity surveyors report prior to a Construction Certificate being issued.

The proximity of the proposed development will detract from the appearance of our dwelling, reduce its value as well as its development potential

See key issues section under Building envelope front and side setbacks. It is not considered that the proposal will reduce the development potential of the neighbours property.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (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. Hence, where a DA does not comply with a control, Council must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternatives. 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.

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in the table below. (Note: a number of controls that are not related to the proposal have been omitted.)

 

Building envelope: Front setbacks

The proposed front setback does not meet the control requiring developments to be setback in line with the average setbacks of the adjoining buildings. As an alternative, the proposed development provides stepped front setbacks between the two adjoining dwellings. In particular, a 2.1m front setback is provided for the ground storey component adjoining the southern neighbours terrace at No. 31 Park Avenue and a 7.1m front setback is provided for the two storey component the northern neighbours terrace at No. 27 Park Avenue. Figure 1 below is a markup of the site analysis plan showing this stepped front setback of the ground (bounded in blue) and two storey component (bounded in yellow).

Figure 1: Excerpt of site plan showing the proposed ground level and two storey component

 

An assessment of the stepped front setback is carried out against the following objectives under the DCP:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

The proposed stepped front setbacks are considered to satisfy the abovementioned objectives having regard to the following:

 

·      The siting, form and massing of the development is consistent with that on the adjoining sites and ensures a good transition between the differing front setbacks of the adjoining buildings.

 

·      Park Avenue and streets in the vicinity contain buildings of various architectural styles. The contemporary architecture of the building will complement the aesthetic qualities of the streetscape. The proposal is an appropriate redevelopment of the subject site that responds well to the immediate built environment as well as the context of the broader neighbourhood, particularly given the mix of architectural character in the surrounding area.

 

Side setbacks

The proposed development is sited along the northern and southern side boundaries and does not meet the 900mm minimum side setback control under the DCP. An assessment is therefore required against the relevant abovementioned objectives.

 

·      The nil southern side setbacks inclusive of the stepped front setback minimises any adverse impacts of visual amenity on the southern neighbour’s site as well as ensuring better levels of solar access to this neighbour’s north facing openings which are highly vulnerable to overshadowing from development of the subject site. In terms of overshadowing, this matter is particularly relevant given a previous two storey development was approved in the Land and Environment Court on the basis of amendments that ensured solar access was being retained to this neighbour’s northern elevation that was commensurate with existing levels of solar access. The proposed development provides similar amounts of solar access to the southern neighbours north facing windows and in some instances more solar access to the southern neighbours dining and living room.

 

·      The proposed U-shape of the development (as shown in the site plan excerpt in Figure 1 above) replaces the existing linear ground level that is 1050mm from the southern neighbours dwelling (see figure 2 below). This allows for the majority of the proposed development to be setback 3.7m from the side boundary providing greater levels of visual amenity from this neighbour’s dwelling.

 

Figure 2: Excerpt of survey of subject site. Identified by red outline the existing dwelling (with a higher gable roof form that is setback 1.05m from the southern side boundary shared with No. 31 Park Avenue). Identified by the green outline is the proposed ground level abutting the southern neighbour’s wall.

 

·      The nil northern side setback does not result in any appreciable adverse amenity impacts on this neighbours property.

 

·      There are no views of significance that are considered to be impacted by the proposed development. Notwithstanding, the proposed built form is considered reasonable in the context of the site and surrounding area.

 

Overall, having regard to the abovementioned setback objectives and site layout, it is considered that the proposed development responds well to the unique site conditions and ensures adequate lighting and ventilation, privacy, visual amenity and spatial separation from neighbouring properties. It is considered that the proposed stepped front setbacks respond well to the established front setbacks and scales of dwellings to the north and south and it will result in a better planning outcome having regard to the level of solar access retained to the northern elevation of the adjoining dwelling at No. 31 Park Avenue, as well as their visual amenity.

 

Earthworks

Depth and proximity of excavation

The proposed excavation for the basement comprising the garage and pool plant room is greater than 1m below existing ground level and does not meet the maximum 1m control under the DCP. The proposed excavation is also sought to be carried out along the side boundaries which encroaches on the 900mm minimum setback control under the DCP.

 

An assessment is required against the following objectives:

 

·      To maintain or minimise change to the natural ground levels

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

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

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

 

The site sits above street level which is the general land form on adjoining and nearby properties and the proposed depth of excavation for the garage will not be inconsistent with the depth of excavation carried out for the garage within No. 25 Park Avenue. The proposed front garage, as amended, responds well to the existing site conditions such that it would generally be consistent with the parking provisions under Part C1 of the DCP for parking structures in front of the building line. In terms of proximity and depth of excavation along the northern side boundary adjoining the front yard of No. 27 Park Avenue, it will not be inconsistent with the proximity of excavation that was carried out for the development at No. 25 Park Avenue. In this respect there are no major concerns with the excavation being carried out adjacent to the northern side boundary adjacent to the front yard of No. 27 Park Avenue subject to appropriate conditions being included in the recommendation.

 

In relation to the excavation being carried out alongside and in close proximity to the buildings within No. 27 Park Avenue and No. 31 Park Avenue, it is acknowledged that there is a greater risk of subsidence of these buildings. It is noted that submissions from the neighbouring properties (inclusive of a qualified civil engineer) in review of the geotechnical report indicate that certain details should be provided prior to a DA consent being issued in the interests of minimising the chance of subsidence of adjoining properties and that the excavation be setback a minimum of 900mm from the side boundaries.

 

It is considered that for the purposes of an assessment of the DA, the submitted geotechnical report and additional information are adequate to allow a proper assessment and the imposition of appropriate conditions. In this respect, a report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer/s, which includes the following details, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority for the development:-

 

a)       Geotechnical details which confirm the suitability and stability of the site for the development and relevant design and construction requirements to be implemented to ensure the stability and adequacy of the development and adjacent land.

 

b)       Details of the proposed methods of excavation and support for the adjoining land (including any public place) and buildings.

 

c)       Details to demonstrate that the proposed methods of excavation, support and construction are suitable for the site and should not result in any damage to the adjoining premises, buildings or any public place, as a result of the works and any associated vibration.

 

d)       The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times throughout demolition, excavation and building work, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

e)       Written approval must be obtained from the owners of the adjoining land to install any ground or rock anchors underneath the adjoining premises (including any public roadway or public place) and details must be provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

Northern wall

The northern elevation of the proposed garage located alongside the front entry stairs of No. 27 Park Avenue will be between 1.5m and 2.25m in height (as shown in Figure 3 below) with a portion exceeding the 2m maximum wall height control permitted under this section of the DCP.

 

As shown in figure 3 below, the degree to which the wall exceeds the 2m maximum is minor and only along a small portion of the boundary. Further this wall adjoins a transient area of the neighbour’s site - a stair access point and not a private open space area of the neighbour’s property. A condition is also included in the recommendation requiring the northern wall to be constructed to an appropriate standard of workmanship and that it be treated to be consistent with the colour and material scheme of the neighbours dwelling.

 

 

 

Figure 3: Plan excerpt of the northern elevation of the proposed garage relative to the neighbour’s stairs at No. 27 Park Avenue. Also shown is the existing ground level within the subject site.

 

Overall, having regard to earthworks, the proposed level and scope of excavation including the wall height of the northern boundary wall are considered to satisfy the abovementioned objectives based on an assessment of the abovementioned variations to the DCP controls.

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing

Solar access for surrounding development

The DCP requires that ‘living areas’ of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am to 4pm on 21 June. The DCP also requires that at least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

The most impacts in relation to overshadowing between 8am and 4pm on 21 June are onto the north facing openings of the building at No. 31 Park Avenue containing a kitchen, bathroom, dining room and living room (see excerpt of elevation below in figure 4).

Figure 4: Elevation of neighbouring dwelling at No. 31 Park Avenue.

 

The proposed development will result in both more and less overshadowing to these openings over the course of the day, between 8am and 4pm, during the winter solstice as shown below:

 

Additional overshadowing

·      9am to 11am: As shown in the northern elevation shadow diagrams below, additional overshadowing occurs over the kitchen and bathroom windows between 9am and 11am. I tis noted that solar access will still be retained at 11am and improves during the day.

 

 

Additional solar access

 

As shown in the northern elevation shadow diagrams below, the proposed development provides varying levels of additional solar access to the north facing openings of the dwelling at No. 31 Park Avenue between noon and 4pm.

 

 

·      Noon: Additional solar access is provided to the dining room with only minor increase in shadow to the bottom sill of the kitchen and bathroom windows

·      1pm: Additional solar access is provided to the bathroom opening, and just below the top header of the dining room and living room openings which currently do not have solar access.

·      2pm: Additional solar access is provided to the kitchen and living room opening, and the top rung of the dining room.

 

 

·      3pm: No material difference in solar access to the openings

·      4pm: Additional solar access to the bathroom and dining room

 

Assessment:

The proposed development achieves a minimum of three hours of solar access to the kitchen and dining room effectively complying with the DCP controls. There will also be more solar access to the northern neighbours dining and living room than that which currently exists. It is also important to note that in comparison with the most recent approval issued for the site (under DA/637/2007) the proposed development results in more solar access to the neighbours dining and living rooms as shown in the elevation shadow diagrams submitted with the previous approval (shown in elevation shadow diagrams below). Reference is also made to the decision made by the Court in regards to DA/1096/2004 whereby the development was amended to ensure that it did not result in any significant additional overshadowing to the northern elevation of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 31 Park Avenue.

 

Elevation shadow diagrams showing the impacts from the approved development under DA/637/2007 at 9am, 12 noon and 3pm during the winter solstice.

 

Overall, the proposed development results in a less as well as more solar access to north facing openings within the dwelling at No. 31 Park Avenue. The proposed development will result in complying levels of solar access to the kitchen opening and greater solar access to the dining and living rooms than the existing situation. It is also considered that the proposed development has been well designed in so far as the proposed FSR is well below that permitted on the site, and difficult site conditions such that the site is oriented on an east-west axis make the southern neighbours property vulnerable to overshadowing particularly as their north facing dining and living rooms are at ground level and within the middle of the site.

 

Car Parking and Access

The proposed double garage is occupied within a site that is less than 12m in width and does not meet the DCP control which limits the width of the garage to a single garage for the subject site which has a frontage of only 9.215m. The DCP also makes provisions for parking facilities forward of the front façade alignment if other options are not available, there is a significant slope down to street level, it does not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas; it does not pose risk to pedestrian safety and it does not require removal of significant contributory landscape elements (such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls).

 

Having regard to the above, the following assessment comments are made:

 

·      The site sits above street level which is the general land form on adjoining and nearby sites.

·      Councils Development Engineer has considered safety aspects associated with the proposed garage and not found that the proposed garage opening within the residential neighbourhood as being unsafe.

·      The proposed front garage generally responds well to the existing site conditions such that it is generally consistent with the garage configuration controls under Part C1 of the DCP and where non-compliance occurs it is not inconsistent with the configuration of another double garage at the front of No. 25 Park Avenue (which has a similar frontage of 9.9m). In this respect, it is noted that the applicant has since reduced the width of the originally proposed double garage and increased the width of their entry gate ensuring a more proportionate relationship across the site. The applicant has also removed what was considered to be an unnecessary privacy screen located along the northern side of the terrace over the garage.

 

·      The proposed double garage, as amended whilst still measuring 6.8m in width from end to end, is considered an appropriate form of development for the site in so far as it incorporates a mix of material, it contains recessed planter that is able to accommodate landscaping which will soften the appearance of the development from street level and is not inconsistent with the massing across the front of other properties in the street.

 

Overall the proposed garage is considered an appropriate form and location of development for the site and will not detract from the streetscape thus satisfying the associated objectives for car parking and access under the DCP.

 

Section 94A contribution Plan

Given the nature of the development inclusive of excavation, the provision of a modern contemporary design, the cost of works being only marginally below the $500,000 cost of works which would require a Quantity surveyors report, it is considered reasonable to require a more formal estimate of the cost of works for the development. Consequently, the standard section 94 condition is amended in order to require a quantity surveyors report to be submitted to Council for approval prior to a Construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The variation from the minimum front and side setbacks, excavation, solar access and location and configuration requirements of the RDCP have been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report above including that the proposed contemporary built form containing a massing and form that will provide a good transition between the two adjoining buildings, the nil side setbacks not contributing to any amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties, the depth and proximity of excavation being subject to a robust condition of compliance, and the proposed garage incorporating design elements that will not detract from the existing streetscape character.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed development is reasonable, subject to the recommended non-standard conditions below and the standard conditions contained within the Compliance report (attached).

 

 

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. 855/2014 for the demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 1 part 2 storey dwelling house, rear swimming pool, front double garage, associated site and landscaping works, at 24 Park Avenue, 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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

A001 C

John House Architect

19.03.15

19 March 2015

A002 C

19.03.15

19 March 2015

A003 C

19.03.15

19 March 2015

A004 B

27.11.14

2 December 2014

A005 B

27.11.14

2 December 2014

A200 C

19.03.15

19 March 2015

A201 C

19.03.15

19 March 2015

A300 B

27.11.14

2 December 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

588/242S_04

27 November 2014

2 December 2014

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The pool heater located on top of the roof shall be flush with the roof and not extend more than 150mm above the roof line.

 

Earthworks and structural adequacy

3.       A report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer/s, which includes the following details, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority for the development:-

 

a)     Geotechnical details which confirm the suitability and stability of the site for the development and relevant design and construction requirements to be implemented to ensure the stability and adequacy of the development and adjacent land.

 

b)     Details of the proposed methods of excavation and support for the adjoining land (including any public place) and buildings.

 

c)      Details to demonstrate that the proposed methods of excavation, support and construction are suitable for the site and should not result in any damage to the adjoining premises, buildings or any public place, as a result of the works and any associated vibration.

 

d)     The adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times throughout demolition, excavation and building work, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

e)     Written approval must be obtained from the owners of the adjoining land to install any ground or rock anchors underneath the adjoining premises (including any public roadway or public place) and details must be provided to the Certifying Authority.

 

4.       A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

·          excavations for new buildings, additions to existing buildings and other substantial structures which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of a building located upon an adjoining  premises,

·          buildings sited up to shared boundaries (e.g. terraced or attached buildings),

·          excavations for new buildings, additions to existing buildings which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any building located upon an adjoining  premises,

·          as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of the relevant building/s located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

5.       A Certificate must be obtained from a professional engineer, which certifies that the building works satisfy the relevant structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and approved design documentation, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority. A copy of which is to be provided to Council.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

 

The following conditions of consent must be complied with before a ‘Construction Certificate’ is issued by either Randwick City Council or an Accredited Certifier.  All necessary information to demonstrate compliance with the following conditions of consent must be included in the documentation for the construction certificate.

 

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 conditions and to achieve reasonable levels of environmental amenity.

 

Consent Requirements

6.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

7.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape. Any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare. The northern wall of the garage shall be constructed to an appropriate standard of workmanship and be treated to be consistent with the colour and material scheme of the neighbours dwelling.

 

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

Section 94A Development Contributions

8.       The applicant shall submit a Quantity Survey report that reflects the approved development, prepared by a Registered Quantity Surveyor. The report shall be submitted to Council for approval, prior to the issue of any construction certificate for the development.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 12 July 2012, 1% of the development cost provided in the approved Quantity Survey report must be paid to Council.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment. Please contact Council on telephone 9399 0999 or 1300 722 542 for the indexed contribution amount prior to payment.

To calculate the indexed levy, the following formula must be used:

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

CP2 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney, as published by the ABS in  respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment

CP1 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the ABS in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of imposition of the condition requiring payment of the levy.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

Landscape Plan

14.     The Landscape Plans by Secret Gardens, dwgs DA-01-02, revision A, dated 27.11.14 must be amended to show the following:

 

a)       1 x 100 litre (pot/bag size at the time of planting) replacement feature tree being planted in the rear yard, in deep soil, at least 2.5m from any dwelling/ structure, selecting a species that will achieve a minimum height of 6 metres at maturity, and is required so as to compensate for the loss of amenity resulting from the removal of all other existing trees in the rear yard so as to accommodate the proposed works;

b)       The podium planting shown on the roof of the cabana structure must involve the use of low growing, low maintenance species only, that will not exceed 600mm in height at maturity, with a minimum soil depth of 250mm to be provided. A planting schedule for this area must be provided to confirm compliance.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D25/15

 

 

Subject:                  5 Howard Street, Randwick (DA/903/2014)

Folder No:               DA/903/2014

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy including new rear balconies and stairs

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mrs S D Williams and Mr D Williams

Owner:                    Mrs S D Williams and Mr D Williams

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed development exceeds the floor space ratio standard under Clause 4.4(2)of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%. The applicant has submitted an exception under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 - Clause 4.4 to the maximum floor space ratios standard.

 

Proposal

Alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy including:

 

·      New rear balconies and spiral stair and replace several existing windows

·      Reconfiguration of room sizes and configuration including new internal private laundry for each dwelling, conversion of existing basement storage room into robe and en-suite and relocation of the bathroom facilities and provision of en-suite bathrooms attached to the main bedroom

·      New stair to side passageway

·      Demolish existing carport structure and make good roof and install new skylights

·      Install new fence within rear yard providing private open space for each dwelling

 

Site

The subject site is on the south northern side of Howard Street, Randwick. The subject building sits on a steeply sloping site from front down to the rear presenting as a single level from street level and two levels at the rear (see photos below).

Front view of subject site.

 

Rear view of subject building including neighbouring building to the west at No. 1-3 Howard Street

 

Similarly scaled developments occur along this side of Howard Street. To the west a semi-detached dwelling identified as 3 Howard Street. To the east, the sites side boundary adjoins the rear boundary of 14 and 16 Kara Street.

 

The locality is primarily residential, consisting of a mixture of detached dwellings, semi-detached and residential flat buildings.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

RLEP 2012 Clause 4.6 – Exception to Development standard for maximum floor space:

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention to the development standard for maximum floor space, as specified by RLEP 2012 and pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 “Exceptions to development standards”.

 

The maximum floor space ratios for buildings, other than buildings erected for the purpose of a dwelling house, within the R2 Low Density Residential Zone is 0.5:1.

 

The overall site area is 356m2, the proposed conversion of the basement store room (not defined as floor area) into floor area for the purposes of a walk in robe and en-suite results an calculated increase in the existing floor space ratio (0.68:1) to 0.69:1 which represents a variation of 38% above the FSR standard (0.5:1) under Clause 4.4(2) of the RLEP 2012.

 

Essentially, the consent authority must be satisfied as required by sub clause 4.6(4) that:

 

i)        the applicant’s written request has adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (3), (that it is unreasonable and unnecessary and there are sufficient environmental grounds for the contravention) 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.

 

Sub clause 4.6(5) also requires concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure to be obtained for development contravening a development standard unless it is otherwise assumed by the consent authority. In this respect, reference is made to the discussion by Chief Justice Preston of the NSW Land and Environment Court in the case of 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 identifying the ways in which an applicant may demonstrate that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, there are sufficient environmental grounds for the contravention and therefore assumed concurrence.

 

An assessment of the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the development standard and whether they have demonstrated that compliance with the floor space ratio development standard satisfies clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 is carried out against four main questions raised in the case of Wehbe v Pittwater Council [2007] NSWLEC 827 as follows:

 

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 relevant development standards relating to floor space ratio is set out in Clause 4.4 – Floor Space ratio as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant has provided the following in support for the departure from the standard:

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing Officer Comment:

The submitted “Exception” to the development standard has clearly addressed the consistency of the proposed development with the purpose of the FSR development standard specified by the RLEP 2012 and the objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone.

 

In respect to the relevant objectives of the Floor space ratio clause the following comments are made:

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed development largely maintains a size and scale that will not affect its compatibility with the desired future character of the area. In this regard the proposed conversion of the storage area robe and en-suite do not add bulk to the building and remain consistent with the existing built form and the surroundings.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed development is well articulated providing areas of functional recreational areas, and internal living rooms within the building without resulting in any significant adverse impacts on the environmental or energy needs of the neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposed additional floor area is contained within the existing envelope and will not result in any significant change to the existing building envelope.  It is considered that the proposed changes will not impact on the streetscape setting of the adjacent buildings and the streetscape. There are no nearby heritage items that will be affected by the proposed development.

 

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.

 

Comment: Having regard to the context of the site and the surrounding area the proposal will not result in any obtrusive elements or result in any significant adverse impacts on the streetscape or neighbouring properties.

 

Overall, with respect to the objectives of the floor space ratio provisions, it is considered that the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

In respect to the relevant planning objectives of the R2 zone the following comments are made:

 

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

 

Comment: The proposal conversion will add functional internal space that is contained within the envelope with the no physical protrusion. The proposal will not impose any appreciable impacts on the amenity of the occupants of nearby dwellings. In conjunction with general compliance of other controls, it is considered that the size, scale and site coverage of the resultant development will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area. In particular, the converted floor area is less than 7sqm which is only 1% greater than the existing floor area and contained within the existing envelope. As such, the actual floor area does not contribute to visual bulk.

                                        

b)       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

 

Comment: The existing dual occupancy as a whole mostly relates to and has been integrated with the sloping topography of the subject site from street level to the rear. The proposed additional floor area is will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape and built form along Howard Street.

 

c)       To protect the amenity of residents

 

Comment: The proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring residents.

 

Overall, the arguments within their written request successfully demonstrate that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case ensuring sustainable development.

 

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

 

As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality and sits comfortably within the residential character of Howard Street. At the same time, it is considered that the proposal will not set an undesirable precedent for similar contraventions of the development standard.

 

In summary, 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 aims of the RLEP 2012 in that additional floor space will be provided on the subject site will not significantly affect the amenity of the occupants of the subject duplex or neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposed development is also considered to be consistent with, and will not contravene the zone objectives of the R2 Residential Area in which the site is located, in that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

Council delegation exercising concurrence function for development that contravenes a development standard is subject to:

 

(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 assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4), it is considered that the:

 

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, duplexes, attached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and the like, where such development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the character of neighbouring development.

 

The variation from the adherence to the floor space ratio 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.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written justification for contravening the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded and supportable; and the resultant layout is considered to be suitable for the site.

 

Privacy from rear decks/balcony

The proposed rear balcony will have a direct view into the side window of neighbouring dwelling at No. 3 Howard Street. In order to provide privacy to this windows, a condition is included requiring the installation of 1.6m high privacy screens to the western and southern side of the upper landing to the spiral stair.

       

There are still views into the rear yards of neighbouring sites; however it is not unreasonable in the context of the sites topography and surrounding sites in so far as there is a level of acceptance that overlooking from rear balconies into the neighbouring properties rear yards areas is largely an unavoidable outcome of this topography. Rear decks and balconies on neighbouring sites also have an outlook into the rear yard of the subject site and their neighbouring properties. It is also considered that the proposed balcony size has been kept to reasonable dimensions limiting the capacity for occupation by large groups of people.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development as conditioned will meet the relevant assessment criteria and will not contravene the objectives of the R2 zone Low Density Residential.

 

Specifically, the proposed FSR will not result in an undesirable precedent given that the proposed additional floor space is contained within the envelope of the existing building and the privacy impact has been resolved by the inclusion of a condition requiring additional privacy screen

 

As a whole, the proposed development will not result in any significant adverse impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the neighbouring properties or the locality.

 

The proposal is, therefore, considered acceptable and is recommended for approval

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 903/2014 for Alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy including new rear balconies and stairs, at No. 5 Howard 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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Sheet 4 of 9

Wilk + Partners PTY LTD Architectural Services

December 2014

18 December 2014

Sheet 5 of 9

December 2014

18 December 2014

Sheet 6 of 9

December 2014

18 December 2014

Sheet 7 of 9

December 2014

18 December 2014

Sheet 8 of 9

December 2014

18 December 2014

Sheet 9 of 9

December 2014

18 December 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A207268

10 December 2014

18 December 2014

A207303

10 December 2014

18 December 2014

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.       A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above the floor level must be provided to the western and southern side of the upper landing to the  spiral stairs. 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.

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

4        a)       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

External materials, finishes and colours of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building and any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare.

 

b)       Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Note: The material used for the spiral stair must be non-reflective in order to limit the potential glare from the structure.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5 Howard Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D26/15

 

 

Subject:                  16 Glen Avenue, Randwick (DA/198/2012/A)

Folder No:               DA/198/2012/A

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification to add 4 windows at level 4 in southern elevations and relocate 1 window at level 4 in northern wall

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr J Ajaka & Mr J A Ajaka

Owner:                    Mr J A Ajaka and Mr J Ajaka and Mr G Ajaka and Mr M Ajaka and Ajaka Investments Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

Proposal

 

Section 96 modification to add 4 windows at level 4 in southern elevations and relocate 1 window at level 4 in northern wall. The openings have been made in the walls and as such the applicant is seeking retrospective approval.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the low side of Glen Street and has a steep fall from the front of the street to the rear of approximately 14.5m. There is also a moderate cross fall with a 2.37m drop from north to south at the front boundary. The site is currently a construction site with the buildings main envelope constructed. The proposed windows are located within the level accessible from the makeshift ramp shown in the photo.

 

View from street level showing the front and southern side elevation of the development.

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the proposal remains substantially the same Development. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed changes will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted. The scope of modifications includes a first floor north facing window sought to be reduced in size and four new first floor south facing windows within the same level. 

 

The proposed section 96 modifications does not involve any changes to the envelope of the approved consent and will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

Notwithstanding, the following key issues associated with the modification as sought are as follows:

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

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

 

Part C2 Medium Density development

Visual Privacy - Windows

The key aspect of the proposed modifications relate to the degree to which the amenity of adjoining properties is impacted having regard to privacy. The RDCP 2013 requires that direct viewing into habitable room windows be minimised.

 

The outlook from the new proposed windows will generally only be across the roofs of neighbouring dwellings and not into neighbouring windows. It is noted that all the windows in question are setback from their respective boundaries by three (3) metres and that the floor level below extends two (2) metres beyond the face of these windows restricting any downward view onto the neighbouring properties.

 

The fenestration modifications associated with this section 96 application is considered to maintain reasonable levels of privacy to neighbouring properties.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Overall, the essence of the application is not changing and it complies with the relevant RDCP 2013 controls relating to privacy of neighbouring properties satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

Consequently, the proposed modifications are suitable for the site, and the application is, therefore, recommended for approval.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. 198/2012/A for the addition of four (4) windows at level 4 along the southern elevation and relocate 1 window at level four (4) in northern wall, at No. 16 Glen Avenue, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA05

Habitat Architects

 

 

25/05/2012

6 June 2012

DA06A to DA08A

18/05/2012

DA09 & DA10

25/05/2012

DA11A

18/05/2012

DA12 & DA13

25/05/2012

DA14A

18/05/2012

DA15

25/05/2012

DA16A

18/05/2012

DA17 & DA18

25/05/2012

DA23 (Draft Strata Plan)

25/05/2012

DA25 to DA27

3 September 2012

3 September 2012

Titled Schedule of External Materials and Finishes.

2 March 2012

28 March 2012

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

413020M_02

28 February 2012

28 March 2012

 

as amended by the following Section 96 plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA09A

Habitat Architects

16.02.15

20 February 2015

DA14B

16.02.15

20 February 2015

DA16B

16.02.15

20 February 2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

413020M_03

20 February 2015

20 February 2015

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D27/15

 

 

Subject:                  1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/B)

Folder No:               DA/994/2011/B

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the floor levels of entry foyer and side pathways, internal configuration, new rear first floor balconies and roof terrace including associated staircase structure to each dwelling

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mr B Flentzeris

Owner:                    Mr B Flentzeris

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview54590.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as the original application was determined by Council and by call up of Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos and Nash.

 

Details of current approval

 

The current approval detailed demolition of the existing structures and construction of a part two/part three storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works.  The application was approved at the Planning Committee Meeting on the 10 July 2012, subject to conditions.

 

Background

 

A section 96 application (DA/994/2011/A) was submitted seeking to modify the approved development by addition of a roof terrace to each dwelling, increase in size of the ensuites to bedroom 1 to each dwelling, and alter entry stairs.  These modifications were refused at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 November 2014, with the side entry stairs and roof top terrace refused for the following reason:

 

“The noise associated with the use of the proposed trafficable rooftop terrace would affect the amenity of the adjoining properties. The height and proximity of the side entry stairs and terrace would overlook the private open space and windows of neighbouring developments and compromise the privacy of the occupants of these dwellings. The height of the roof staircase enclosure will result in additional view loss impacts and will result in non-compliance with the height of building standard in the RLEP 2012.”

 

Proposal

 

The section 96 application seeks to modify the original consent as follows:

 

·       The establishment of a roof terrace to each dual occupancy dwelling. The approved staircase to the first floor level will continue to the roof level.  The terrace will be partially covered.

 

·       New roof terraces to the rear of the dwellings off the kitchen which is reduced in size to accommodate for new sliding doors.

 

·       The stairs enclosure will result in the roof height of the building to be increased from 250mm to 850mm.

 

·       The ensuites of Bedroom 1 to each dwelling will be extended resulting in an increase of 3m² in total area.

 

·       Increasing the height of the external entry stairs by 1.19m on the side boundary and deleting the internal entre foyer stairs.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade between Hilary Parade to the north and Lawson Street to the south. Pioneers Park and national parkland with the sea further on is located directly to the east of the site on the opposite side of Anzac Parade.

 

The lot presently contains a single level detached brick dwelling house and detached fibro garage located in the rear yard of the site were approved in 1955 (BA/324/1955). Subsequently a brick carport located level with the front setback to the south of the dwelling has been approved and constructed.

 

The site has a frontage to Anzac Parade of 15.24m and a total site area of 557.9m2 (as per survey). The site has a depth of 39.355m on the southern boundary and is slightly irregular in shape. The topography of the site slopes down from the rear (west) of the site to the front (east) at an overall grade of approximately 6.3%. The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by low density residential development including, primarily, detached dwellings and attached dual occupancy development. The scale of existing development on surrounding sites varies between single storey and three stories in scale.

 

Figures 1: Street 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. Two (2) submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

1177 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Issue

Comment

Invasion of privacy and breach of height & FSR controls.

The proposed roof terrace and rear first floor terraces are not supported.

 

See further discussion under key issues section of this report which addresses these issues.

 

35 Meehan Street, Matraville

Issue

Comment

Loss of privacy & existing views

 

The proposed roof terrace and rear first floor terraces are not supported.

 

See discussion under key issues section of this report which addresses this issue.

 

Overshadowing

 

 

 

Whilst amended shadow plans were not submitted with this application, Council has conducted an assessment of the shadows which revealed that the proposed roof terrace stair enclosure will not result in any additional overshadowing impacts to this objector’s property and therefore, is considered acceptable in this regard.

 

SEE report in particular page 4, 4.1.3 Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings.

 

Fail to see how the non-compliance in the overall building height and proposed addition of roof terrace and rear balconies does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing and views.

The proposed roof terrace and rear first floor terraces are not supported.

 

See discussion under key issues section of this report which addresses these issues.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

The original application was assessed against the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and the Dwelling Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies DCP 2000, however since their repeal, the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013 are the principle statutory and policy documents which guide assessment of this application and the key issues associated with the proposed modifications as follows:

 

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

 

Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

Clause 4.3 of the Randwick LEP 2012 and Section 3.2 of the Randwick DCP 2013 provide objectives and controls for maximum building heights. The main objectives are:

 

§ To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

 

§ To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

 

§ To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site

 

Submission have been received by neighbouring properties at no.’s 1177 Anzac Parade, Matraville & 35 Meehan Street, Matraville objecting to the height of the building as it will adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing and views.

 

The numerical Randwick DCP 2013 controls are that for sloping sites the external wall height not exceeds 8m and the Randwick LEP 2012 provision is that the overall height of buildings not exceed 9.5m above ground level. The proposed modifications have an external wall height of between 9.45m and 10m and an overall building height of 10.35m significantly exceeding the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 maximum height control and development standard.

 

The information submitted with the application is not considered to have adequately addressed or justified these non-compliances. The non-compliances are a direct result of the proposed roof terrace that contravenes Section 4.4 of the RDCP 2013 explicitly prohibiting roof-top terraces to the uppermost or main roof of dwellings and dual occupancy in low density residential areas.

 

In addition, this section 96 application seeks to increase heights to RL41.83, which is above and beyond the height originally proposed at RL40.89 and subsequently reduced to RL40.2 upon determination.

 

Moreover, the non-complying heights will directly result in adverse impacts on the streetscape character, solar access and views from neighbouring properties as discussed below.  Additionally, under the previously refused application the terrace areas are much small.  This application is seeking to increase the terrace areas to the sides further contributing to privacy impacts.

                                     

In relation to streetscape character, a site visit and walk through the locality reveals some larger dwellings and dual occupancies; however these developments were not approved with roof top terraces.  In addition, the proposed height would represent a significant disparity between the scale of the development and that of the adjoining part-two part-three storey development on the northern neighbour’s property at No. 1177 Anzac Parade - as shown in the elevation plan in figure 1 below.  Further, approving the roof terrace areas will set an undesirable precedence within this area and result in accumulative impacts with regards to privacy and view loss which is not supported in DCP.

 

The assessment provided in sub-section 5.3 of the DCP found that the use of the roof top terrace for recreational purposes will impact upon the visual and acoustic privacy of the neighbouring properties. As such, the variation does not result in a better outcome for and from the development. Based on these factors above it is considered that an exemption under Clause 4.6 of the Randwick LEP 2012 to height of building should not be granted in this instance.

 

 

Figure 1: Front elevation shows the proposed roof terrace and adjoining development at No. 1181 Anzac Parade, Matraville and No.1177 Anzac Parade, Matraville.

 

Clause 4.4 - Floor space

Clause 4.4 of the Randwick LEP 2012 states that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. The floor space ratio map (FSR_009) related to the subject site indicates a maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1.  The proposed modification seeks to vary this standard by 3m² as a result of bedroom 1 to each of the dwellings being extended resulting in an increase to the originally approved floor space ratio of 0.524:1 (295.2m²) to 0.535:1 (or 298.2m²). The additional floor area is considered to be minor and will not pose any significant material impact on neighbours or its appearance from the public domain.

 

The additional level of non-compliance is considered acceptable and will continue to satisfy the following objectives under the RLEP 2012:

 

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

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

(c)  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.

 

Whilst this aspect of the proposal is satisfactory, a refusal of the application is necessary due to the fact that the main component of the application relates to a roof terrace and other works that contravene the specific controls and objectives under the Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

C1 Table:  Low Density Residential

The proposal has been assessed against the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The provisions of the DCP are structured into two (2) components, Objectives and Controls, with an explanation to aid interpretation.

 

The controls of the DCP must be generally complied with. Where a variation is proposed, the applicant must successfully demonstrate an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. This ensures that guidance provided by the DCP allows sufficient flexibility to recognize that every property has different characteristics based on their unique combination of site conditions, size, aspect and location.

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed against the relevant objectives and controls under the Randwick DCP 2013 and have found to be not consistent with the DCP. The development is considered to result in unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the character of the locality. These issues are elaborated upon below and have been raised as concerns during the assessment of the application.

Sub-clause - 4.3 Additional Design Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

Objectives

       

·     To ensure the configuration, scale, massing and proportions of attached dual occupancies are compatible with other dwellings in the street.

 

·     To ensure parking facilities do not dominate the street elevations of dual occupancy dwellings but present as an integrated architectural element.

 

The additional roof terraces, of the height, scale and massing proposed, would represent a significant departure from the emerging character in the locality and therefore should be refused to maintain the existing low-scale residential area. The  roof terrace presents as a fourth storey which is above and beyond the prevailing built form of newer developments along this section of Anzac Parade which are part two part three storey dwellings and dual occupancies.

The roof terrace will have an overall building height of 10.35m which breaches the maximum building height development standard in the RLEP 2012 by 850mm. This represents an over ambitious response to the control and will encourage future development in the area to breach the control and causes excessive bulk and scale to the streetscape and result in accumulative view loss and overshadowing impacts.

 

Sub-clause 4.4 - Roof Design and Feature

Roof Terraces

The DCP control for roof terraces under Section 4.4(i) of the DCP states that Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces must not be provided on the uppermost or main roof of the building. The proposed roof terrace is located on the uppermost roof and therefore contravenes this control.

 

Hence, an assessment is carried out against the following DCP objectives:

 

·     To ensure roof design integrates with the form, proportions and façade composition of the building.

·     To ensure trafficable roof space is integrated with the built form and maintains satisfactory privacy relationship with the neighbouring dwellings.

 

In relation to the first objective, that is requiring the roof terrace to be integrated with the form, proportions and façade composition of the building, it is considered the location of the balustrades and roof stair enclosure to the centre of the building presents as disjointed presence from most angles and does not integrate with either the context of the approved development or those on adjoining sites.

 

The second objective is to ensure the siting and design of the building provides a high level of visual and acoustic privacy for residents and neighbouring dwellings and private open space.

 

The recreational use of the roof top area will result in overlooking mainly of the adjoining properties to the north and south. The recreational use of the area will allow for the congregation of people which could potentially result in a detrimental increase in noise due to its location and the fact that the roof top terrace is significantly elevated. It is clear that the use of the roof top terrace will impact upon the visual and acoustic privacy of the neighbouring properties and should be refused. This is consistent with the assessment provided in Section 96(2) application DA/994/2011/A.  The impacts from the use of the roof top terrace is reinforced in and by the submissions received from the neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed roof terrace is not considered to satisfy the relevant objectives in so far as it does not integrate with the form, proportions and façade composition of the building and it will result in a greater capacity for overlooking, and acoustic privacy impacts which cannot be ameliorated by the inclusion of screens or the like as it would further contravene massing controls and objectives under the RDCP 2013.

 

There are no other examples of roof terraces within this area and moreover the RDCP 2013 under subsection i) of this control explicitly prohibits the proposed roof terrace; and an assessment against the objectives reveals that the terrace will result in significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties and streetscape. Further, the application does not contain reasonable justification of compliance with the objectives under Clause 4.3 height of RLEP 2012 or the objectives under Section 4.4 Roof Design and feature of RDCP 2013 and therefore, is recommended for refusal.

 

Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

The objectives for solar access and overshadowing under Section 5.1 of the RDCP 2013 are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed development will result in additional overshadowing to the southern neighbours dwelling and private open space areas. The applicant has not submitted amended shadow plans that demonstrate compliance with the controls or the objectives under the RDCP 2013. Notwithstanding, it is considered that based on the angle of the sun during the winter solstice, the proposed roof terrace will cast additional overshadowing to the roof and rear yard of the southern neighbours site at No. 1181 Anzac Parade Matraville. As this additional overshadowing is directly associated with non-complying external wall and overall building heights it is not considered that the application meets the abovementioned objectives having particular regard to maximizing solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

 

Sub-clause - 5.3 Visual Privacy

Visual Privacy – Section 5.3

Objective

 

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

 

Controls

 

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

 

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

·         Front or rear of the allotment;

·         Side courtyard.

 

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

 

Submissions were received from the side and rear adjoining properties at no.’s 1177 Anzac Parade and 35 Meehan Street objecting to the proposed terraces as they will cause overlooking impacts to their rear private open space and windows.

 

In relation to the proposed roof terrace it is considered that adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring dwelling at No. 1177 Anzac Parade will occur; it will also limit the development potential of No. 1181 Anzac Parade and afford an outlook towards the rear of dwellings backing onto the subject site. Hence, it is considered that the proposed roof terrace does not comply with Section 5.3 of the RDCP 2013 Visual Privacy.  In terms of acoustic privacy, the proposed roof terrace does not contain any noise attenuation measures at this level and it is considered that were attenuation measures employed then this would merely add to the scale of the development at the roof level. Hence, it is not considered that the proposed roof terrace can reasonably comply with the objectives under Section 5.4 of the RDCP 2013.  In addition to the above, the previous Section 96 ‘A’ application was refused with a smaller terrace area this application is increase the size of the terrace areas to the sides of the dwellings which will further exacerbate the privacy impacts.

 

In relation to the proposed rear first floor terraces, the sizes of the terraces are excessive and will create overlooking impacts to the neighbouring properties.  If the depth of the terraces are reduced they may be considered acceptable however, a refusal of the application is necessary due to the fact that the main component of the application relates to a roof terrace and other works that contravene the specific controls and objectives under the Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013.  In addition to the above, a condition was included in the original consent recommending that the roof to these proposed areas be non-trafficable which suggested that the original planner assessing the application did not support trafficable use of the rear terraces.

 

In relation to the reconfiguration of the main side entries, the external relocation of internal portions of the entry stairs will result in a 1.19m increase in the landing level approved in the original consent which is directly opposite respective side neighbours. This is a further increase to the previous section 96 ’A’ application by 690mm, which was recommended for refusal. The main concerns with these changes relate directly to maintaining privacy to southern and northern neighbours window openings and indirectly to the streetscape amenity.

 

In relation to the southern elevation, the increased landing level results in significant privacy impacts to the southern neighbours kitchen and dining room windows whereby the landing level will be only 180mm below the neighbours kitchen and dining room window sills and the existing 1.8m fence only achieves an effective height of 360mm above the proposed landing level resulting in adverse privacy impacts. It is not considered that a privacy screen can reasonably ameliorate this privacy impact, as it would both be obtrusively high (3.03m, refer to figure 3 which illustrates a fence height of approximately 1.6m in dashed line) in relation to the neighbours ground level and it will also present poorly from street level.  A privacy screen will also be required along the northern side landing as this landing sits 1.08m below the window sill level opposite, RL 34.00 and will have a direct outlook into the neighbor’s window resulting in the same issues discussed above.  Refer to figures 2 & 3 below.

 

Figure 2: Proposed modifications to entry stair layout

 

Figure 3: Proposed entry landing as shown in elevation relative to side boundary and approximate location of neighbouring window openings. 

 

Consequently, in the interests of reducing obtrusive elements adjacent to neighbouring sites and maintaining a consistent form across the dual occupancies, it is not considered that this aspect of the Section 96 application is suitable for the site having regard to adverse privacy impacts and maintaining streetscape amenity.

 

Overall, the visual bulk and scale of the proposed modifications are not considered to be compatible with the approved dual occupancy at the subject site and will visually dominate the street elevation of the dual occupancy and the neighbouring properties and result in unreasonable adverse privacy and overshadowing impact. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to satisfy the provisions of Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

Sub-section 5.6 - View Sharing

In relation to views, the objectives under the RDCP 2013 are

 

§ To acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements, such as ocean, bays, coastlines, watercourses, bushland and parks; as well as recognised icons, such as city skylines, landmark buildings / structures and special natural features.

§ To protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

§ To ensure development is sensitively and skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain

 

The original development assessed view loss from the rear of 35 and 37 Meehan Street where it was found that based on the reasonableness of the developments height, the quality of the views and the level of view loss that the proposed development would be acceptable when considered against the Principles of View Sharing established by the Court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140

 

The photos below in figures 4 & 5 show the original view loss from the rear of 35 and 37 Meehan Street dwellings. These are distant views of the Malabar Headland and water views obtained over the rear and side boundaries of the subject site and the ridge of the existing dwelling.

 

Figure 4: Original image from southern side of rear terrace, 37 Meehan Street. Approximate extent of impact shown in red.

 

Figure 5: Original image from eastern side of No. 37 Meehan Street, first floor.  Approximate extent of impact shown in red.

 

The proposed modification seeks a further increase in the height of the development to RL41.83 which is above and beyond that originally sought and subsequently reduced at the original determination to RL40.2.  This increase in height was also refused in the previous Section 96 ‘A’ which was considered at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 November 2013. The approved height under the original consent despite having non-complying external wall heights was considered to be acceptable due to the clerestory roof having a similar scale to a traditional pitched roof form (illustrated by green pitch, superimposed on the plan in figure 6 below). The assessment revealed the scale of the roof would not result in any appreciable increase in adverse impacts of overshadowing or view loss than that caused by a development with a complying external wall height and would therefore satisfy the relevant objectives under the DCP and the principles of view sharing established by the Court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

                                  

Using a similar analysis for the proposed modifications, the illustration below shows a similarly superimposed pitched roof form over the section 96 proposed roof terraces (illustrated by red pitch). It reveals a vastly steeper roof pitch which both exceeds the maximum external height control under the RDCP 2013 and the maximum overall height standard under the RLEP 2012. These increases will exacerbate view loss raised in the assessment of the original application and as concluded in the previous Section 96 ‘A’ assessment which indicated earlier result in greater disparity across the adjoining dwellings.  More specifically, based on the photos above in figures 4 & 5; the proposed modification will obstruct horizon views. The loss of these views as a result of modifications that explicitly contravenes specific height controls and development standards cannot be considered as reasonable development and therefore cannot achieve compliance with the principles of view sharing established by the Court in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

 

Figure 6: Section of the proposed development showing the superimposed pitched roof forms of the original (green) and proposal (red) as well as the ridge line of the northern neighbours dwelling at no. 1177 Anzac Parade Matraville (orange line).

 

The non-complying external wall height in the DCP and overall height of building standard in the LEP will result in adverse impacts on neighbouring properties in terms of streetscape amenity, overshadowing and view loss. These impacts will occur at the very least, at greater levels than that which would occur from both the approved development and a development that complies with the controls. Hence, the additional building height proposed under this section 96 modification cannot be supported.

 

Suitability of the Site for the Development Proposed (Section 79(c))

Based on the assessment provided above it is considered that the height and proximity of the side entry stairs and roof top terrace will result in unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring properties and it is concluded that development of this type is not suitable on the site.

 

The Public Interest (Section 79C (e))

As detailed above Council does not accept the amended plans submitted by the applicant.  As such the submissions received during the notification are relevant and the proposal is not considered to be in the public interest. Approval of a side entry stairs and roof top terrace undermines the Randwick LEP 2012 and DCP 2013 and can result in future applications for roof top terraces, which due to the associated visual and acoustic privacy impacts is not 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

 

It is generally considered that most parts of the proposed section 96 modifications will result in adverse impacts upon the character of the locality and neighbouring properties and are not supported. The proposed amendments are unacceptable having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Council policies, for the reasons provided in the recommendation below.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/994/2011 by way of addition of a roof terrace to each dwelling, increase in size of bedroom 1 to each dwelling, and alter entry stairs, at No. 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives for R2 Low Density Residential Zone as set-out in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it fails to:

 

a)  recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form that contributes to the desired future character of the area.

 

b)  protect the amenity of residents.

 

2.       The proposed increase in overall height is excessive and does not comply with development standards and objectives under Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that it fails to:

 

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

b)   ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing and views

 

3.       The proposed increase in the external wall height is excessive and does not comply with the Controls and objectives under Section 3.2 of the Randwick DCP 2013 in that it fails to:

 

a)     To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

b)     To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

c)     To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.   

 

4.       The proposed roof terrace does not satisfy the objectives and controls under Section 4.4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 – Roof Design and Features in that it fails to:

 

a)     Adhere to the control that roof terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces must not be provided on the uppermost or main roof of the building.

 

5.       The proposed roof terrace and entries does not satisfy the amenity objectives under Section 5.3 and 5.4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 – Visual and Acoustic privacy in that it fails to:

                                            

a)     ensure development minimise overlooking or cross viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

b)     ensure the siting and design of development minimise the impacts of noise transmission.

 

6.       Pursuant to Section 79C(1)(e) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 and having regard to the above reasons, approval of the application is not in the public interest as evidenced by the objections received.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D28/15

 

 

Subject:                  8 Simeon Street, Clovelly (DA/794/2011/D)

Folder No:               DA/794/2011/D

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 Modification of the approved development for relocation of the front entry from garage level to ground floor level, internal reconfiguration, changes to the window openings on the northern elevation, changes to the rear staircase from Seaview Street and modification to the external wall materials.

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               In+Out Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Nick Skagias

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview53963.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks to modify the original consent determined at a Planning Committee meeting of 12 June 2012.

 

The subject application seeks to modify the approved development for demolition of existing garage and shed, substantial reconstruction of existing dwelling including first floor addition, construction of lower level double garage to front, swimming pool to rear and associated works.

 

1.         Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to modify the approved development as follows:

 

·          Increase in height of the dwelling from RL78.885 to RL79.250 (resulting in a change of height from 9.36m to 9.73m);

·          Reconfiguration of the rear stairway access to Seaview Street to run along the northern boundary;

·          Modifications to the ground floor windows on the northern elevation including increase in height of the W/C window, deletion of the butler’s pantry window and minor relocation of the kitchen window further towards the centre of the dwelling; and

·          Minor reconfiguration of the storage area on the upper sitting area;

·          Change of garage finish and upper wall finish from render to pre-painted compressed panels.

 

Additional changes were sought by the applicant and amended plans were received and subsequently renotified. The following additional modifications are sought:

 

·          Alterations to the front entry of the dwelling from the garage level to the ground floor level;

·          Two additional windows towards the front of the dwelling on the northern elevation attached to the stairway, laundry and toilet;

·          Minor internal reconfiguration of the garage level stairway, lift, storage area and water tank;

·          Internal modification of the ground floor to accommodate the new entry way including new porch adjoining the approved front deck and reconfiguration of the laundry, stairway, lift, pantry and toilet; and

·          Reconfiguration of the first floor stairway and lift.

 

It is noted that whilst the initial proposed include raising the overall ridge height about the maximum allowable building height, which was not supported by Council Officer’s. The applicant provided that the increase in height was to comply with the minimum clearance heights for the internal stairway; however discussions with Council’s Building Surveyors confirmed that the current stairway meets the minimum standards. A meeting was held between the applicant and Council Officers after which the applicant agreed to retain the existing height of RL78.885. A condition of consent has been included to reduce the height shown on the submitted plans.

 

2.         Site

 

The subject site is located at 8 Simeon, Clovelly and is identified as Lot 4 in DP303981. The site is located on the western side of Simeon Street, south of its intersection with Douglas Street. The site is rectangular in shape and orientated on a northeast-southwest axis.

 

The topography of the site falls in a north easterly direction away from Seaview Street to Simeon Street, with a level change of approximately 5.99m over the length of the site from RL73.26m at Seaview Street to RL67.64m at the Simeon Street frontage. There is also a cross fall from the northeast boundary to the south west boundary ranging from RL67.84 to RL66.64 respectively.

 

The topography of the locality slopes in a south easterly direction down Simeon Street away from its intersection with Douglas Street. Due to the landform variation, retaining walls have become a characteristic element of residential design along the western side of the street.

 

 Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern eastern, front boundary to Simeon Street

10.375m

321.9m² 

 

 

North western, side boundary

30.505m

South eastern, side boundary

31.43

South western, rear boundary

10.365m

 

The immediate streetscape is characterised by a mixture of two (2) storey residential dwellings with high brick front boundary fencing and modified California Bungalows to the lower eastern side of the street.

 

 

Figure 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. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·          6 Simeon Street (x2)

 

Issues

Comments

-   Privacy impacts and overlooking into the rear yard from proposed changes to the northern elevation windows.

 

The proposed window changes will be largely obscured by the 1.8m boundary fence.

-   New windows would create noise.

The new windows are attached to a stairway, laundry and toilet which are not likely to generate excessive noise.

 

-   Privacy impact from new windows to front balcony.

The new windows are not considered to impact on the privacy of the adjoining property’s front balcony. See further discussion within the compliance report.

-   Objection to windows being opened.

The new windows are attached to low use rooms and it is not considered reasonable to impose such a restriction.

-   Oversized development

 

The proposed modifications to the overall height are no longer proposed.

-   Loss of sunlight

As per the above, the proposal retains the approved height.

 

4.     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.

 

As discussed in the relevant section of this report, the proposed modifications do not give rise to unreasonable amenity impacts and generally maintains the physical massing of the approved development. 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.

 

In accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 the proposed modification to the approved development is considered to result in a development that is substantially the same as the originally approved development. As such, it can be assessed under Section 96 of the Act.

 

5.     Key Issues

 

·      Internal and external modifications

The proposal seeks minor internal and external modifications. The external modifications comprise the relocation of the front entry way and reconfiguration of the rear stairway to Seaview Street. The front entry way will result in occupants entering the dwelling on ground level as opposed to the garage level. A small porch element is proposed as part of the reconfiguration from the stairs into the dwelling. The new porch is not considered to create any significant overlooking opportunities from the ground floor location and is located adjacent to the approved decking, which is significantly larger than the porch. The porch is not considered to result in an additional entertaining area and will not result in unreasonable privacy impacts as expressed by the objector given its minimal width, which does not facilitate use as an entertaining area. The internal modifications sought are a result of the reconfigured front entry way and do not result in any additional external alterations.

 

The rear stairway leading from the subject site to Seaview Street has been reconfigured from access along the rear boundary to access along the northern boundary. The stairs are located against the adjoining neighbour’s garage, and are not considered to result in additional privacy or noise impacts.

 

·      Clause 5.6 – View Sharing

As the proposed development will remain at the previously approved height at RL78.885 an additional view loss assessment is not required.

 

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 modification to the original consent satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development. The proposed modifications will not result in any unacceptable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the streetscape and is considered to be acceptable in this regard.

 

 

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. 794/2011/D for relocation of the front entry from garage level to ground floor level, internal reconfiguration, changes to the window openings on the northern elevation, changes to the rear staircase from Seaview Street and modification to the external wall materials at No. 8 Simeon Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

A.             Non standard conditions

 

·      Add Condition 62 to read:

62.     The ridge of the proposed roof shall be reduced, having a height of no greater than RL78.885.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 8 Simeon Street, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D29/15

 

 

Subject:                  446-448 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/685/2014)

Folder No:               DA/685/2014

Author:                    Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Construction of a part 4 and part 6 shop top housing development containing 5 retail/commercial premises and 22 units, car parking for 40 vehicles at partial ground and 2 basement levels, central landscaped courtyard and associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Sgamotta Architects

Owner:                    Maria  Plater, Helen Travers  and Yvonne Engelman

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview29359.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is reported to the Planning Committee as the estimated cost of development exceeds $2 Million.


Background

 

The proposal was the subject of a Pre DA Application PL/37/2014 that resulted in the lodgment of the original application for construction of a part 4 and part 6 shop top housing development containing 5 retail/commercial premises and 23 units, car parking for 40 vehicles at partial ground and 2 basement levels, central landscaped courtyard and associated works.

 

In response to issues raised by Council as part of the prelimary assessment amended plans were lodged on March 2, 2015 including the following changes:

 

·          A reduction in the total number of units from 23 to 22.

·          Changes to the internal configuration and external appearance of the building in accordance with the recommendations of the DRP.

·          Significant alterations to the design and setback of the main pavilion to provide a 4m setback to the 5th level and a 5.53m setback to the 6th level within a roof form.

·          A revised parking layout to accommodate a compliant provision in relation to the number of spaces and provision for waste storage areas.

 

It is the amended plans which are the subject of this report.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the erection of a part 4 and part 6 shop top housing development containing 5 retail/commercial premises and 22 units, car parking for 40 vehicles at partial ground and 2 basement levels, central landscaped courtyard and associated works.

 

The following is a breakup of the proposed development.

 

Table 1: Proposed Development Level

Eastern Building (Bunnerong Road)

Western Building

(Baird Lane)

Basement 2A & 2B

27 car spaces

Basement 1 & Ground B

13 car spaces & 2 Disabled shared zones

2 x offices spaces, loading bay & pump room

Podium Level & Ground A

3 shops + pedestrian court yard access

2 x 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom units

Level 1

4 x 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom units

2 x 2, 2 bathroom bedroom units

Level 2

4 x 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom units

1 x 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom unit

Level 3

4 x 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom units

Roof level

Level 4

1 x 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom, 2 x 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom

-

Level 5

1 x 2 bedroom, 2 bathroom 1 x 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom

-

Total Dwelling Units

14 x 2 bedroom

2 x 3 bedroom

5 x 2 bedroom

Total Development summary

19 x 2 bedrooms

3 x 3 bedrooms

5 commercial /retail spaces

 


 

Site

The subject property comprises three allotments, being Lot 2 on DP209787 and Lot A & B on DP412252, located at 446, 446A & 448 Bunnerong Road. The subject site has a primary frontage of 26.45 metres, a depth of 35.5m and a total site area of 947m2.

The site also has a secondary frontage of 26.68 metres to Baird Lane, whereby vehicle access to the site is obtained.

 

No vegetation exists on the site and the existing buildings are not heritage listed.

 

To the north the site is occupied by a part 2 and part 3 storey mixed development constructed to the common boundary with a central courtyard area. To the south is a single storey shop and dwelling.

 

The surrounding locality has a mix of traditional single storey shops interspersed with recent shop top housing development of 4-7 storeys.

 

The following images show the site and surrounds (Source: SEE ABC Planning):

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site.

Figure2: Bunnerong Road view of subject site.

Figure 3: Baird Lane view of subject site.

Figure 4: Bunnerong Road view of subject site and adjoining sites.

Figure 5: Baird Lane view showing adjoining development to the north.

Figure 6: Baird Lane view showing adjoining properties to the north and south.

Figure 7: Aerial view showing properties to the rear fronting Baird Avenue and Baird Lane.

Figure 8: Baird Lane view of garages on properties opposite 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:

 

·        Unit 3/442-444 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

·        Unit4/442-444 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

·        7 Baird Avenue, Matraville

·        9 Baird Avenue, Matraville

·        10 Baird Avenue Matraville

·        11 Baird Avenue, Matraville

 

Concerns

Comments

Overshadowing is excessive and does not comply with the DCP.

The overshadowing impact of the proposed development is addressed in the compliance report. In relation to the objections received, during the winter solstice (June 22):

 

·       The property at 442-444 Bunnerong Road will not be overshadowed by the proposed development.

·       The northern and eastern openings to living areas of properties on the eastern side of Baird Lane including 7, 9 and 11 Baird Avenue will be out of shadow cast by the proposed development before 10.00am.

·       At least 50% of the rear landscaped areas of the above properties will be out of shadow cast by the proposed development before 11.00am.

·       Properties on the western side of Baird Avenue including 10 Baird Avenue will be out of shadow cast by the proposed development before 9am.

 

In respect of the above properties, the proposal satisfies the requirements of the DCP.

Construction traffic will cause noise, traffic, dust and debris problem.

Conditions of consent including requirements for the submission of a construction traffic management plan, noise control measures and general amenity safeguards are included in the recommendation. These controls will ensure adequate levels of amenity to surrounding properties during construction.

 

Traffic generated form the development will cause congestion, cannot be accommodated within the surrounding road network and will reduce the amount of limited on-street available.

The proposed development in its amended form provides compliant parking within the development and should not reduce the availability of on-street parking in surrounding streets.

 

The number of movements likely to be generated by the proposed development is well within the capacity of the surrounding road network and has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer as satisfactory.

The levels of traffic will increase safety risks and the likelihood of accidents.

This aspect has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development will result in increased safety risks and the likelihood of accidents.

The proposal will create privacy impacts to surrounding properties.

The physical separation between the proposed development and the developments on surrounding properties is consistent with the performance criteria in the DCP and should ensure adequate mutual levels of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

The development will encourage the entry of unauthorised persons ”jump the fence” between developments

The security pedestrian and vehicular access points will allow for safe entry of occupants of the development and preclude the entry of unauthorized entry of persons. The 2 office spaces with units above will increase the ability for casual surveillance of Baird Lane.

Removal of domestic and commercial waste will produce odours.

The waste storage areas within the development and collection in accordance with an ongoing waste plan of management should control the storage and disposal of waste in an adequate manner.

The proposed development will increase the probability of dumping in the laneway.

There is no evidence to support this claim, given the waste storage areas being provided. The inclusion of office spaces on the lane will also provide casual surveillance, thereby determining such activities.

No consultation with surrounding landowners was had prior to lodgement of the DA.

Whilst this is encouraged by Council there is no statutory obligation to consult with surrounding landowners prior to lodgement of an application.

Property values will decrease as a result of the proposed development.

This issue is outside the ambit of the planning legislation in NSW.

 

 

Key Issues

 

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) in accordance with the provisions of the SEPP both as a pre DA and a formal Development Application on a number of occasions.

 

The following comments from the most recent DRP consideration of the matter in December 2014 are provided below:

 

Panel Comments

 

This is now a DA and the second time the Panel has reviewed this proposal (previous review in July 2014) for a six level apartment development with ground floor retail located on Bunnerong Road at the northern end of the shopping centre.  2 retail spaces, 2 office spaces, 42 car spaces over 2 basements and 23 apartments of various sizes.

 

The site has a frontage to Baird Lane, which is at a lower level to Bunnerong Road and from which an entrance to the parking levels is provided.  The site is at present occupied by one and two storey commercial buildings, of no distinction.

 

The Panel is familiar with the site and the wider area.

New comments are listed below in italics.

 

1.           Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The area around the proposed building is at present characterized by one and two storey (post WW1) retail, small-scale commercial buildings. These provide continuous awnings over the footpath, extending from the site to the centre of Matraville. 

 

The planning and development controls for this part of Matraville anticipate redevelopment to the scale that is proposed for the subject site.  Buildings of the “New Matraville” scale are located nearby on the opposite side of Bunnerong Road.

 

The Panel recommends that the 1 metre setback to the lane be dedicated to Council, to allow for a footpath in the future. The basement should not extend under this space, and the building projects above could be limited to a 450mm overhang (formerly the Roads Act overhang, which is a good dimension). - The one metre setback has been provided however it does not seem to be dedicated to Council as the basement and Ground level to Level 3 overhang it.  The Panel’s advice remains as above.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The development provides for construction of a concrete footpath within a 1m setback at ground level along the laneway frontage which will eventually align with other developments as sites are redeveloped. It is not intended to require the dedication of the 1m strip to provide for the footpath and as such the overhang of upper levels which are sited to the boundary is acceptable.

 

2.           The Scale of the Proposal

 

In the short term the proposed building will be out of scale with its surroundings, but in the longer term satisfactory.

 

3.           The Built Form of the Proposal

 

Generally the built form proposed is logical and consistent with the DCP and with other buildings that are changing the scale of Matraville.

 

A six storey building has frontage to Bunnerong Road and a three storey building (the top floor set back as “habitable roof space”), above parking and small office units face Baird Lane.  There is now a 12 metre wide landscaped courtyard between the two buildings.

The retail frontage has been optimised which is to be commended as well as the daylight and view to landscape from the residential lobby.

 

Cognisant of the envelope being repeated on adjoining sites in future, the Panel recommends the following improvements:

 

•       The courtyard width should be a minimum of 12m clear of built form. The minor solid encroachments should therefore be removed, and only screened balconies allowed to project slightly into this space - done

•       The stairs to the Baird Lane apartments should be embedded in that building and would be best open to both the east and west facade to allow a shaft of sun and breezes into the courtyard. -  The stairs are now recessed into the Baird Lane building the courtyard space is improved.  Although the stair does not open to the lane it is considered acceptable.

•       The corridor in the Bunnerong Road building should be open to the west facade without connection through a private balcony - BCA, light spill and acoustics will be problematic. - done

•       The long and tight entry corridors within some of the apartments are too narrow to be useful or comfortable. This problem has been eased to some extent with areas of widening in the circulation spaces.  Dimensions should be provided.

•       Weather protection should be provided to the Baird Lane west facing upper terraces - done

•       The roof design should be used to optimise ventilation and access to winter sun - The apartment in the roof space (U23) should be provided with a continuous western terrace, full height windows and doors, sunshading and weather protection.  Overlooking a roof is not recommended, particularly for this aspect.  Proposed roof details shown in the detailed section need to be indicated on the elevations, including downpipes if they are exposed.

•       2900mm floor to floor is not considered to be enough height to provide good clear 2700mm ceilings throughout due to the changing layouts for wet areas and acoustic requirements.

•       the central courtyard covered way should be deleted as it will reduce light and sun to this area as well as block views to landscape from Baird Lane.

•       anomalies on the drawings need to be tidied such as the fall of the lane on the west (a section through the studio office spaces would be helpful), the window operation improved and annotated (west entry glass to the lobby for example), metal louvres noted on the drawings and if they are operable and moveable.

•       a materials board referenced specifically to the facades should be submitted as the descriptions on the drawing are generic.


 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

·          With respect to the unit on the uppermost level of the western façade fronting Baird Lane, the inclusion of a roof form for this unit is in accordance with the expectations of the DCP which contemplates a maximum of 3 levels and a roof form. Balconies provided to the northern and southern ends of the uppermost unit 22, directly accessible from living areas and the master bedroom respectively, will allow for panoramic views to the west. Planter boxes to these balconies will ensure an acceptable privacy interface with adjoining and surrounding properties to the north, south and west. 

·          Residential floor to floor heights in the main pavilion to Bunnerong Road have been amended to provide a minimum of 2950mm which exceeds the minimum requirements of 2900mm of the DCP.

·          The central courtyard covered walkway has been deleted in accordance with the recommendations of the panel.

·          The fall of the laneway versus finished ground levels, the window operation detail confirming that louvres will be operable and movable has been clarified on the plans.

·          Additional detail of materials at a scale of 1:50 has been provided showing appropriate treatment of the main façade.

 

4.           The Proposed Density

 

This is reasonable and consistent with the emerging form of the Matraville centre.

 

5.           Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

•       solar protection of east and west facing windows - generally done. Some windows such as U3 and U4 main bedroom remain exposed to heat load and weather.  The high usage of fixed glass is not supported by the Panel.  Windows should be openable and protected to support natural ventilation in various weather conditions. Awning windows a far less effective for cross ventilation than louvres, double hung or sliding windows.  Safety restrictors further reduce their effectiveness.  Velux type roof windows are not suited to the climate and produce high levels of heat load and insufficient ventilation.

•       ceiling fans in habitable rooms - done

•       a plenum over the east-west corridor on levels one, two and three to provide cross-ventilation for the single frontage units facing Bunnerong Road - this important item needs to be shown clearly in the drawings - not done to date

•       suitable insulation

•       roof design for light, ventilation and winter sun - it appears that there are some roof lights shown on the roof plan however it is unclear how they relate to internal bathrooms etc. Skylights should also ventilate and be clearly marked on the plans.

•       rainwater retention to drip irrigates planters / allow to water plants - not evident on the landscape plan provided.

•       window design to optimise ventilation options for the occupants - fixed glass areas should be reduced

•       clothes lines - not evident

 

Windows must be designed in such a way as to allow them to remain securely open to allow cross-ventilation. - see notes about fixed glass above.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

 

·          The application is accompanied by a BASIX certificate which documents conformity with the requirements of the SEPP.

·          The amounts of fixed glass have been reduced in the overall design and operable windows to a reduced total number of units are included in the amended plans. The velux type roof windows have been deleted as recommended by the panel.

·          The plenum has been clearly shown indicated on the plans.

·          Insulation will be in accordance with the BASIX certificate which accompanies the application.

·          Skylights including ventilation detail are shown on the amended plans.

·          Specific conditions regarding details to ensure adequate irrigation of landscaped areas are included in the recommendation.

·          Sufficient areas within units should allow for adequate drying areas and/or units will be equipped with drying facilities compliant with the BCA. Details will be provided for in the construction certificate.

 

6.           The Proposed Landscape

 

It would be possible to lower the slab level (or part thereof) over the car park to enable the provision of deeper soil than is at presently shown over a wider area within the proposed courtyard.  - the soil provided is quite deep however can it be lowered into the basement any further to reduce the height of the planter retaining walls in the courtyard (see Section AA)?  A tree should be provided towards the centre of the courtyard as a good-sized tree will increase privacy between the two buildings, reduce Heat Island Effect and be seen from Baird Lane and neighbouring properties.

 

A landscape scheme prepared by a qualified landscape architect must be provided with the DA. Trees that provide privacy and shade within the courtyard should be established.

 

Landscape in undercroft areas (such as beside the residential lift foyer) need proper consideration.

 

Planters in the courtyard and on balconies need to be detailed including irrigation systems.  - not done

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

·        An amended landscaping plan has been assessed by Council’s Landscape Officer as acceptable subject to conditions.

·        The landscaping plan has been amended to provide for the centrally located tree in the courtyard area in accordance with the panel’s recommendation.

·        Irrigation system detail can be provided at construction certificate stage.

 

7.           The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The location and overlapping usage of balconies on the western facade of the Bunnerong Road building needs to be corrected to ensure privacy.  - done

 

The replanning of units 2, 6 and 10 to place the balcony centrally within them should be considered to increase the environmental performance, comfort level and sense of space. Generally the unit planning would benefit from further design development. - done.  Some of the kitchen layouts could be reconsidered - an L shaped kitchen may be a better use of space, and the small screen wall in U19 could also be removed (or removable) to add to the flexibility of the space.

 

The Bunnerong Road facade should be considered for acoustic treatment to surfaces such as perforated fc balcony soffits and potential weather protection hoods to reduce road noise impacts. The potential for the soffits is shown on the drawings but needs to be annoted as well.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

·          The layout of unit 19 has been considered by the architect and retained as originally proposed. In view of other improvements this recommendation of the panel is not of critical significance.

·          Timber paneling to the soffits has been detailed on the plans.

 

8.           The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

 

This should be satisfactory.

 

9.           Social issues

 

Additional accommodation in this small centre is desirable, as it would support the extension of services in the area.  The provision of three bedroom units on the top floor could be considered.- done however the planning arrangements on levels 2, 3 and include 50% single orientation apartments.  The ventilation plenums are essential for these apartments.

 

The opportunities to provide some active from frontages on the rear lane are strongly supported.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

·          The required plenum detail is shown on the amended plans.

 

10.         The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The Panel encourages the applicant to refine the facade design to eliminate thick and chunky proportions and the overuse of painted render. On the Bunnerong Road facade, the contrast between the overly-solid brick elements and the balconies is not convincing and needs design development. The splayed soffit on the upper balcony has potential, perhaps this could be adapted for use throughout the street and lane facade, and it modulates the scale, and allows more daylight to balconies.

 

The design of the top floors needs further resolution.

 

Large scale (1:50) part sections / elevations should be presented to confirm the facade design and materials selection. If well detailed, this proposal could be a good addition to Matraville.

 

The built form including a base, simple ‘hole in the wall’ middle and ‘roof-form’ top is acceptable however the decorative treatment is ‘trendy’ rather than refined and enduring which is the design approach preferred by the Panel.  The colour palette, proposed feature side walls, accent ‘blades’ and amount of painted surfaces should be reconsidered.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

·      The most significant amendment to the Bunnerong Road façade is amended setback to levels 4 and 5 to comply with the requirements of the DCP of a minimum 4m clear setback to level 4 and a further setback to level 5 within a recessed roof form.

·      Sections at 1:50 showing design and materials have been provided with the amended plans.

·      In respect of the main bulk of the building, the amended plans seek to break up the façade by way of variation in colour of cement rendered components and combined with other materials including vitra panels and glazing. A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring approval of the materials and finishes prior to issue of the construction certificate.

·    Similarly, the colour scheme of the proposed northern and southern walls of the development can be suitably modified as per the above condition.

 

Summary and Recommendations

 

The Panel looks forward to reviewing this DA again after the issues raised have been addressed.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The changes embodied in the amended drawings reasonably accommodate the recommendations of the panel. Appropriate conditions of consent will be included to ensure the specific intent is respected. On this basis there is no further need for referral to the panel.

 

Randwick DCP 2013

 

C3. 3 Adaptable Housing

The DCP requires that a minimum of 20% of dwellings in new multi-unit housing and residential flat buildings containing 10 or more dwellings must be adaptable.

 

The proposed development includes a lift providing access to all levels of the main pavilion and a condition of consent is included in the recommendation that the adaptable units to the requirements of a minimum Class C Certification under AS4299 Adaptable Housing be included in the construction certificate.

 

D5 Matraville Town Centre

 

Building Envelopes

The following Table 4 provides a summary of the controls for the section of Bunnerong Road including the subject site and where the frontage of development is over 12m wide:

 

 

Whilst the amended proposal is generally consistent with the requirements of the DCP there are a number of strict numerical departures which are addressed as follows:

 

3.32 Heights:

The objectives of the DCP in regard to heights are as follows:

·          To ensure an appropriate relationship between new development, street width, and surrounding dwellings.

·          To achieve a consistent built street edge height.

·          To ensure appropriate floor to ceiling height within buildings.

·          To achieve a visual transition between the heights of buildings on Bunnerong Road and the heights of buildings ‘behind’ the main street.

 

The DCP includes the following diagram of intended height relationship between the provisions of the DCP and the RLEP:

           

The proposal seeks to include a 6th floor within the area designated in the above diagram as the roof form. As originally submitted, the proposal incorporated an inadequate setback to both the 5th and 6th levels and the treatment of the overall bulk of the development to Bunnerong Road. The resultant built form was not consistent with the intentions of the DCP.

 

The amended proposal provides for 4 storeys to the street edge, a 5th storey setback 4m and a 6th storey setback 5.53m within a roof form. The following image demonstrates the consistency with the DCP envelope in this regard:

 

 

 

The resultant development is compliant with the maximum height of buildings standard under the RLEP. Notwithstanding the inclusion of a 6th storey, its enclosure within a roof form is consistent with the intentions and stated objectives of the DCP as outlined above and is supported.

 

Floor to ceiling heights:

The DCP requires:

Ground/Storey 1 = 3.5m + 0.8m floor slab/ceiling space

Storey 2 to 6 = 2.7m + 0.2m floor slab/ceiling space

Maximum height to underside of topmost ceiling (up to storey 6): 15.7m

 

Whilst all residential levels comply with the floor to floor heights stipulated under the DCP (inclusive of a slight increase in the height to respective levels based on recommendations from the DRP), the commercial floor level to Bunnerong Road provides for a 3.5m floor to ceiling height with a 200mm slab width as provided for residential levels. Such arrangement would allow for a realistic height to a false ceiling of a minimum of 3m and 500mm for services which is a workable arrangement. Therefore and notwithstanding the departure, the proposed floor to ceiling height is supported for the following reasons:

 

·          The ceiling height of the commercial level will allow for a functional accommodation of services required in relation to the retail uses on site.

·          The built form of the proposed development complies with the intentions and objectives of the DCP.

·          The maximum height of the proposed development complies with the 19m height limit applicable under the RLEP.

 

3.3.3 Depth

The objectives of the DCP in this regard are:

 

·          To encourage dual aspect apartments.

·          To ensure residential apartments have good amenity for residents in terms of sun access and natural ventilation.

 

The DCP controls require:

 

i)      Development fronting Bunnerong Road, Beauchamp Road, Daunt Avenue, Baird Avenue, Perry Street and Franklin Street = Maximum 16m

 

Development fronting a lane and development at the rear of a lot = 8m

 

ii)     Within the maximum building envelope depths:

·          articulate the building facade, and

·          design apartments so that the maximum glass to glass dimension is 14 metres.

 

iii)    Balconies may extend outside the maximum building envelope depth by up to 600 mm, but may not extend beyond the property boundary.

 

The residential component of the building fronting Bunnerong Road has an envelope depth of approximately 16.8m to the main pavilion and the building at the rear has a depth 7.125m and 8.265m averaging approximately 7.6m. Importantly the internal courtyard achieves a separation between front and rear pavilions of 12m for the bulk of the interface. The achievement embodied in the amended plans has also been supported by the DRP as an acceptable outcome.

 

The buildings are well articulated with balconies and a combination of finishes and materials.

 

The maximum glass to glass dimension varies from the maximum in some areas, ranging from approximately 13.2 to 16.7m. The sections of the building which exceed the 14m width traverse more than a single unit and the overall built form is acceptably articulated.

 

The departure is supported for the following reasons:

 

·          The departure of 800mm in relation to the front pavilion is consistent with building envelope requirements of the DCP which allows for a 600mm extension for balcony encroachments.

·          15 of the proposed 22 units achieve a dual aspect which represents a good design outcome.

·          The internal amenity has been improved in the amended plans increasing the percentage of operable windows to the main façades which will improve natural ventilation within the units.

·          The sunlight access achieved to units within the development is generally consistent with the requirements of the DCP.

 

4.2 Awnings

The DCP details the following objectives in relation to Awnings:

 

·          To provide shelter and amenity for pedestrians on public streets.

·          To reinforce an existing coordinating feature of the town centre.

·          To provide continuity in the streetscape.

 

The controls require to:

 

i)      Provide continuous street frontage awnings to all new development. Generally awnings should be a minimum 3 metres deep.

ii)     Setback awnings a minimum of 600mm from the kerb.

iii)    Design new awnings to be complimentary with their neighbours, and aligned with the general alignment of existing awnings in the street.

iv)    Cantilever awnings from the buildings with a minimum soffit height of 3.5 metres.

v)     Provide under awning lighting to improve public safety.

vi)    Colonnades along the street edge are inappropriate in this context.

vii)   Signage on canvas blinds is inappropriate.

 

A continuous awning is provided along the Bunnerong Street frontage and has been designed to complement existing and likely future awning structures in this location. The awning is setback a minimum of 600mm form the kerb with a soffit height of between 3.0m and 3.2m which departs from the strict height of 3.5m height stipulated under the DCP. Notwithstanding the strict numerical departure is supported for the following reasons:

 

·          The proposed awning structure will achieve the stated objectives of the DCP outlined above.

·          The structure as proposed provides for a functional arrangement and will allow for public safety.

·          The proposed awning height will relate acceptably with existing and likely future awning structures within this section of the Town Centre.

 

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 in its amended form is consistent with the relevant planning controls as addressed in the report and is supported.

 

 

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. 685/2014 for construction of a part 4 and part 6 shop top housing development containing 5 retail/commercial premises and 22 units, car parking for 40 vehicles at partial ground and 2 basement levels, a central landscaped courtyard and associated works at No. 446–448 Bunnerong Road 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

 

2.         The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a)     Four adaptable dwellings must be designed and constructed within the development to a minimum Class C Certification under AS4299 Adaptable Housing. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 446-448 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     14 April 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D30/15

 

 

Subject:                  JRPP 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensingtion (DA/320/2013/B)

Folder No:               DA/320/2013/B

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal

 

Section 96 modification of the approved development (S96B) by replacing the supermarket at ground floor level with 4 retail tenancies, total reduction of 180sqm in approved gross floor area, changes to basement parking configuration including modification to access ramp and circulation, 8 new 2 bedroom residential units at mezzanine level, changes to loading dock configuration, reduction in total number of car parking from 283 to 200, and increase the overall building height to RL53

 

Introduction

 

The subject Section 96 modification (S96B) seeks to modify the approved development by replacing the supermarket at ground floor level with 4 retail tenancies, total reduction of 180sqm in approved gross floor area, changes to basement parking configuration including modification to access ramp and circulation, eight (8) new two (2) bedroom residential units at mezzanine level (level 3), changes to loading dock configuration, deletion of basement level and reduction in total number of car parking from 283 to 200, and increase the building height to be consistent with Condition 3a of Section 96 application (DA/320/2013/A).

 

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, as the application is made pursuant to S96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011.

 

The original approval DA/320/2013 was approved by the JRPP on 29 May 2014 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part six (6), part seven (7) storey mixed use development, comprising three (3) basement levels with 257 car spaces, ground floor supermarket with loading dock and 100 residential units above. Associated excavation, dewatering and landscaping works were included.

 

The S96A application (DA/320/2013/A) determined by the DRPP on 3 December 2014 modified the original development by reconfiguring the ground floor retail to allow for four (4) tenancies in addition to the supermarket, increased number of approved units from 100 to 113, reconfigure apartment layouts and increase roof height limited to RL52.82 from Section 1 of the building at the northern elevation to Section 9, requirements for additional details to be provided relating to the roof form, additional operational glazing within the “slots” of the building, and requirements for waste management, colours and materials and parking.

 

A S96C application (DA/320/2013/C) pursuant to Section 96(1A) of the Act also under assessment to make changes to the basement level sought under this S96B application, although with the supermarket still being part of the proposal.

 


Issues

 

This scheme was publicly exhibited and notified and a number of submissions were received from the local residents objecting to the development, mainly on the grounds of excessive height, loss of the supermarket, loss of parking, and potential damage to adjoining properties to the east.

 

The proposed modification indicates an increased height however it does not result in the building being increased in height above that which was restricted under condition 3a of the previous S96 application – DA/320/2013/A (S96A). The application does include details of an amended roof form and plant screening that does not encroach over the height limit approved under S96A. However, given the proposed plant screening is not considered to form an integrated element within the roof form, that which was required under the previous S96A conditions, it is recommended that conditions 3a and 3b of the previous S96 application be retained. This will means that the maximum height, and amended roof design and details are required to be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the Development.

 

The application seeks an increase in the number of apartments within the building from 113 to 121 which has been achieved by deleting the supermarket and locating these apartments over a new ground level parking area at the rear. The overall bulk and envelope of the development is being reduced at this level. The eight apartments have been identified by the Design Review Panel (DRP) as having very little light and ventilation due to their “snorkel” like internal layout and inability to provide windows within the “slots” as these slots are the main access to the communal gardens, and the windows would be compromised for privacy along these corridors. The proposed configuration and access corridors do not markedly change from the original determination by the JRPP or that of the previous S96A approval. The amenity of these units is considered reasonable in so far as highlight window openings are still being provided along these slots and these apartments have larger open deck areas with more direct access to the communal open space/pool area. Further, management of access along these corridors will likely be limited during appropriate hours.

 

The proposed enclosed ground level parking at the rear will reduce the overall bulk of the building at ground level achieving a 2.2m lower floor level at the rear communal open space area. The DRP panel recommended improved natural ventilation to the ground level parking area, and as a result the applicant has submitted a sketch plan showing louvre openings along the eastern elevation. This louvre element is considered appropriate subject to a condition being included requiring an amended acoustic report ensuring the emissions from the ground level parking area satisfy relevant standards.

 

The proposed ground level parking results in the loss of 11 visitor parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a traffic report indicating that the shortfall can be managed as the visitor parking for both retail and residents occur during different periods. The modifications to parking also separate parking between the residential and commercial components ensuring greater levels of security for residents of the apartments. Council’s Development Engineer raises no objections to the shortfall in visitor parking or the modified arrangements.

 

Whilst the loss of the supermarket is a negative aspect of the application, an appropriate planning outcome is achieved in so far as the overall bulk and envelope is being reduced, four retail tenancies instead of one along Anzac Parade maximises street level activity with separate uses and greater levels of visual interest and there will be a reduction in noise and amenity impacts associated with servicing a large supermarket.

 

The application seeks to revert to a more conventional method of excavation. The proposed change to the method of excavation and loss of a basement level is considered less intrusive and recommended for approval. The increased basement wall setbacks from the eastern boundary will also increase deep soil levels. Council’s Landscape officer anticipates that this modification will minimise the degree to which the roots of the significant trees along the rear boundaries on neighbouring properties would be comprised thus improving the likelihood of their future health and stability. The increased setbacks will also minimise the need to prune these nearby trees associated with the machinery that would need to access these parts of the site during construction.

 

The proposed modifications relating to the increase in number of apartments, loss of the supermarket, four retail premises, ground level parking, loss of a basement level, and change in method of excavation would generally reduce the physical massing of the approved development and do not give rise to unacceptable amenity impacts, if implemented in accordance with the recommended conditions.  

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 2:       A vibrant and diverse community.

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications relating to the height are merely seeking to comply with the determination made under Condition 3a of the S96A application. The proposed roof form is generally considered appropriate from the Anzac Parade frontage; however the plant screening requires some further efforts which would integrate it with the roof form of the development. Consequently, Condition 3a and 3b of the S96A application shall remain for this purpose. The loss of the supermarket and replacement with eight (8) additional apartments (over upper level 3) with access to communal area at a lower level over the new ground level car parking will result in less bulk at the rear of the development and would generally reduce the amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties. The shortfall in visitor parking and shared use between resident and retail components is considered a reasonable outcome in so far their peak periods would vary and it resolves proper separation between the resident parking and the retail component. The proposed change to the method of excavation, loss of the lower basement level and increase rear setback of the basement will mean less intrusive excavation and potential for damage to neighbouring properties and are recommended for approval.

 

Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Approval of the modification (subject to conditions) will not result in any significant environmental impacts and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the assessment report for the Joint Regional Planning Panel in relation to DA/320/2013/B (84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington) be endorsed by Council.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

JRPP Report - 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

 

 

 


JRPP Report - 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Attachment 1

 

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel

(Sydney East Region)

 

JRPP No.

2014SYE103

DA No.

DA/320/2013/B

Local Government area

Randwick City Council

Proposed Development

Section 96 modification of the approved development (S96B) by replacing the supermarket at ground floor level with 4 retail tenancies, total reduction of 180sqm in approved gross floor area, changes to basement parking configuration including modification to access ramp and circulation, 8 new 2 bedroom residential units at mezzanine level, changes to loading dock configuration, reduction in total number of car parking from 283 to 200, and increase the overall building height to RL53.00. Original consent: Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new part 6 and part 7 storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor retail space, 100 residential dwellings, 3 basement levels of parking, associated site and landscaped works

Street Address

84 - 108 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Applicant

Luxcon 88 Pty Ltd

Owner

Luxcon 88 Pty Ltd

Number of Submissions

 

6

Recommendation

Approval

Report By

Elias Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer

 

 

1.   Executive Summary

 

Council is in receipt of a Section 96(2) application seeking modification of the consent for DA/320/2013; which was approved by the Joint Regional planning Panel (JRPP) on 27 March 2014. The original approval was for the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a new part 6 and part 7 storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor retail space, 100 residential dwellings, 3 basement levels of parking, associated site and landscaped works.

 

This section 96 modification is identified as S96B for clarity to distinguish between a previous section 96A modification determined by the JRPP on 3 December 2014 and a current Section 96C modification (made under S96(1A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (Act)) currently with Council for assessment (detailed under application history).

 

This S96B application (DA/320/2013/B) is seeking to remove the lower basement level and increase the basement setback from rear boundary, remove terraced planting and replace with sheer wall, delete the supermarket (as modified under S96A) and replace with on ground parking and mezzanine level above (Level 3) containing 8 additional apartments, lower the common property pool area by 2.2m allowing for direct access from the new mezzanine level apartments, and the reduction in the number of visitor parking spaces. The applicant also seeks an increase in the height of the development in certain sections to RL53.00 exceeding by 18cm the maximum RL52.80 imposed under condition 3a of the determination made under S96A.

 

The S96B application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, as the application is made pursuant to S96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011.

 

This scheme was publicly exhibited and notified and a number of submissions were received from the local residents objecting to the development, mainly on the grounds of excessive height, bulk and scale, overshadowing, loss of privacy, and potential damage to adjoining properties to the east and the loss of the supermarket.

 

The proposed height of the building is consistent with the determination made under S96A in so far as the overall height of the building between Sections 1 to 9 do not encroach over the maximum RL52.82 imposed under Condition 3a of the S96A determination. However, plant and equipment is shown as being located on the roof over apartment 914 (not shown on elevation), conflicting with condition 3b of the S96A determination requiring its deletion. The applicant has since amended their roof plan deleting the plant and equipment from the roof plan.

 

The application also shows an amended roof form and screening for the mechanical plant and equipment. The plant screening is largely metal screening which is generally inconsistent with the form and materials of the main building and roof and is therefore not supported. Condition 3a of the previous S96A is considered sufficient for the purposes of addressing this aspect of the proposal and no further assessment will be made of the changes to the roof form and plant and screening under this application (a condition is included deleting these aspect from the development application).

 

The increase in the number of apartments within the building from 113 to 121 (accommodating 8 apartments at upper level 3) is achieved by deletion of the supermarket. The eight apartments have been identified by the DRP as having very little light and ventilation due to their “snorkel” like internal layout and inability to provide windows within the “slots” as these slots are the main access to the communal gardens, and the windows would be compromised for privacy along these corridors. The proposed configuration and access corridors do not markedly change from the original determination by the JRPP. The amenity of these units is considered reasonable in so far as window openings along these slots will likely be highlight windows and these apartments have larger open deck areas with direct access to the communal open space/pool area. Further, management of access along these corridors will likely be limited during reasonable hours.

 

The enclosed ground level parking at the rear will reduce the overall bulk of the building at ground level achieving a 2.2m lower floor level at the rear communal open space area. The applicant has submitted a sketch plan showing louvre openings along the eastern elevation in response to the DRP comments. This louvres section is considered appropriate as it will improve natural ventilation to the ground level parking area. A condition is included requiring an amended acoustic report ensuring the emissions from the ground level parking satisfy relevant standards.

 

The proposal results in the loss of 11 visitor parking spaces. The applicant has submitted traffic and parking management plan indicating that this could be demand managed by sharing the residential and retail visitor parking at ground level. This in turn would ensure greater levels of security for residents of the apartments. Council’s Development Engineer raises no objections to the arrangement.

 

The application seeks to revert to a more conventional method of excavation. The proposed change to the method of excavation and loss of a basement level is considered less intrusive and recommended for approval. The increased basement wall setbacks from the eastern boundary will increase deep soil levels. Council’s Landscape officer anticipates that this modification will minimise the degree to which the roots of the significant trees along the rear boundaries on neighbouring properties would be comprised thus improving the likelihood of their future health and stability. The increased setbacks will also minimise the need to prune these nearby trees associated with the machinery that would need to access these parts of the site during construction.

 

The proposed modifications relating to the increase in number of apartments, loss of the supermarket, four retail premises, ground level parking, loss of a basement level, and change in method of excavation do not give rise to unacceptable amenity impacts and would generally reduce the physical massing of the approved development, if implemented in accordance with the recommended conditions.

 

2.   The Proposal

 

The current Section 96 application seeks approval for modifications to the approved scheme arising from a change in the mix of apartments and modifications to floor plans at all levels including the basement. 

 

The proposed modifications are detailed below: 

 

Delete Basement 3 (leve1)

 

Lower Basement 1 (Level 1)

 

•    Modify Ramp and access cores

•    Modify service and access cores

•    Reconfiguration of car parking spaces (total of 61 spaces)

 

Upper Basement (level 2)

 

•    Modify ramp and circulation

•    Modify access cores

•    Reconfiguration of car parking spaces (total of 93 spaces)

 

Ground floor

 

•    Remove supermarket,

•    Enlarge 4 retail tenancies along Anzac Parade frontage

•    Enclosed (shared residential and retail visitor) parking at rear (46 Spaces)

•    Garbage rooms in parking area

•    Modified service layout

•    Sketch of eastern elevation of ground level parking provided showing louvres to assist with natural ventilation of the ground level parking.

 

Upper level 3

 

·      Remove S96A approved residents gymnasium at south western corner

·      8 new apartments with access onto common open space pool area

·      Common open area lowered 2.2m reconfiguring access (from level 5 apartments) to new Level 3 apartments

 

Levels 5 – 9

 

•    Remove direct access from level 5 apartments facing east due new mezzanine level and lowered common area.

 


Level 10

 

•    No changes

 

Roof

 

•    Alteration in roof form mainly to accommodate mechanical plant requirements

•    Results in increase to roof height

 

General

•    Amended excavation/construction method, results in a tapered setback from the eastern boundary measuring between 3m and 4.5m from the north to south.

 

•    Tiered wall on eastern elevation has been deleted allowing for a larger deep soil area.

 

•    Amended landscape design to accommodate reduced pool and modified rear boundary setback.

 

The table below contained in the SEE accompanying the S96 applications summarises the development statistics as approved and proposed to be modified

 

Table 1: Development statistics

 

Proposal Overview

Approved under DA320/2013

S96A

S96B modification

No. of dwelling units         

100

113

121

Apartment mix

1 bedroom: 22

2 bedroom: 65

3 bedroom: 13

Total= 100

Studio & 1 bed = 43

2 bed= 49

3 bed= 21

Total 113 units

Studio & 1 bed = 45

2 bed= 55

3 bed= 21

Total = 121 units

 

Max. studio and 1 bed Require: Max of 40%

22/100 = 22%

43/113-38%

45/121 = 37%

Parking (spaces)

(B) Basement

Basement 1 = 68

Basement 2 = 88

Basement 3 = 100

Total = 257

Basement 1 = 72

Basement 2 = 101

Basement 3 = 110

Total = 283 car

52 bicycle

10 motorbike

Lower (B) = 61

Upper (B) = 93

Ground = 46

Total = 200

76 bicycle

10 motorbike

GFA

10,772sqm

 

10,835sqm

10,655 sqm

Max Building Height and Number of Storeys

25m

6 storeys plus habitable roof

Majority of building =25m

27.5m to architectural roof feature

6 storeys plus habitable roof

(7th storey)

Majority of building = 25m

Between 25.4m /25.6m to top of roof and plant (RL52.80/RL53.00)

 

Application history

 

Approved development DA/320/2013

 

DA/320/2013 was approved by the JRPP on 29 May 2014 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part six (6), part seven (7) storey mixed use development, comprising three (3) basement levels with 257 car spaces, ground floor supermarket with loading dock and 100 residential units above. Associated excavation, dewatering and landscaping works were included.

 

Approved Section 96A application DA/320/2013/A

 

The S96A application (DA/320/2013/A) determined by the DRPP on 3 December 2014 modified the original development by reconfiguring the ground floor retail to allow for four (4) tenancies in addition to the supermarket, increased number of approved units from 100 to 113, reconfigure apartment layouts and increase roof height limited to RL52.82 from Section 1 of the building at the northern elevation to Section 9, requirements for additional details to be provided relating to the roof form, additional operational glazing within the “slots” of the building, and requirements for waste management, colours and materials and parking.

 

Section 96C application under assessment - DA/320/2013/C

 

The S96C application (DA/320/2013/C) is seeking consent under Section 96(1A) of the Act to make changes to the basement level sought under this S96B application, although with the supermarket still being part of the proposal.

 

Subject Site

 

The subject site is known as 84- 108 Anzac Parade, Kensington. It has a 96 metre frontage to Anzac Parade.

 

The approved development amalgamates nine (9) individual allotments, previously comprising a run of nondescript one (1) and two (2) storey commercial buildings, some with residential above. The applicant has commenced demolition of the buildings on the site.

 

The amalgamated site is generally rectangular and of the following dimensions:

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

39.345 metres

3336m2

Western, Anzac Parade boundary

96.7 metres

Southern, Goodwood Street boundary

39.345 metres

Eastern, rear boundary.

98.81 metres

 

3.   Community Consultation:

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development; and the proposed development was also advertised, in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. Six (6) submissions were received from the following properties and one submission was received from a town planning consultant. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed below and in the subsequent sections of this report.

 

·      102 Eastern Avenue, Kensington

·      33 Boronia Street, Kensington

·      65 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

·      Unit 24/Level 2 76-82 Anzac Parade, Kensington

·      9 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

·      29 Elsmere Street, Kensington

 

Issues

Comments

•     Reduction in car parking on site will result in greater demand for on street parking.

•     The net reduction in parking associated with the loss of retail space only results in the reduction of 4 spaces not 83. The methodology used to calculate the shortfall is inconsistent with the required methodology under the DCP.

Council’s Development Engineers have assessed the application and no objections have been raised on safety, parking or traffic grounds. Whilst the proposed parking provision does not achieve compliance with the numerical requirements under Council’s Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Part B7, Transport, Traffic, parking and access it is considered that the parking shortfall is minor and that subject to appropriate conditions the parking provided will meet the demand generated by the development. Refer to discussion in key issues section.

 

Part B7 of the DCP provides design guidelines, Parking and Service Delivery requirements that are modelled on Australian standards, Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) guide to traffic generating development 2002 and Austroads guides.

 

It is noted that the RMS rate for supermarkets is 42 spaces per 1000m2 which meant that the originally approved supermarket required 94 spaces. It was noted at the time that the RMS rate derived the parking requirements from 1990 data and upon taking into account the site's location close to buses and future light rail, Councils development engineer suggested a minimum of 84 spaces would be required for the supermarket. The S96B application seeks to reduce the parking on site by 83 spaces offsetting the reduction of parking commensurate with the removal of the supermarket.

•     The layout of units containing study can be used for the purposes of a third bedroom thus increasing the parking required for the development.

One of the main objectives of the Kensington Town Centre DCP is to provide a mix of apartment types and size to accommodate a range of household types. The two bedrooms apartments that contain study areas will cater for a range of demographics.

•     Suggest that Council consider declaring the mezzanine level apartments not be used in future for additional retail, commercial or ancillary retail GFA for the life of the building and that the developer apply an easement to this effect under S88 of the EP&A Act 1979 to be placed on the title

The application is not seeking to use this area as office space. Any application that would seek to convert this area into office space will be required to address the relevant matters for consideration such as parking.

•     The retail voids add bulk to the overall building and should be otherwise treated as additional GFA

The proposed application reduces the buildings bulk at the rear and the ground floor level is designed with high ceilings in order to present a vibrant and open presence along the street thus contributing to the economic viability of the Kensington Town Centre. The additional units at the rear are mostly located over the ground level parking at the rear and will not extend further to the rear than the originally approved building depth.

•     No materials details for fencing along the rear boundary

Whilst a dividing fence is a matter between the respective neighbours under the Dividing Fences Act, the S96B application details on the eastern boundary setback section, an 1800mm high wall along the eastern rear boundary located wholly within the subject site. A condition is included requiring further fencing material details to be provided to Council for approval and for the treatment to the eastern elevation of the fence/wall to be carried out to a high standard of workmanship.

·      There is no indication on the documentation of the design and placement for car parking basement mechanical exhaust outlet locations as these may create noise and amenity impacts having regard to proximity of clothes lines and bedrooms

Mechanical plant items are not typically identified at DA stage. In this respect, condition 55 of the original determination required compliance to be detailed with the relevant requirements of Clause F4.12 of the BCA and Australian Standard AS 1668 Parts 1 & 2 (including exhaust air quantities and discharge location points) which are required to be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority with the construction certificate and a copy of such relevant documentation is to be provided to Council. In terms of acoustic amenity, the original consent contains conditions:

35, 128 and 153 requiring the emissions from the proposed development to comply with relevant standards, prior to, during and within one month of occupation. In addition, should there be a concern that emissions are a nuisance; Council has the authority to require the proponent of the site to furnish details that demonstrate compliance with relevant standards.

•     This application addresses an area marked as Block 01 with a 4 + 2 storey building envelope.  The Randwick LEP of 2012 relaxed the height limit to 25m accommodate the de facto 7th storey developments approved during the first 10 years of the DCP’s operation.  The applicant is again attempting to exceed the generous height limits and densities approved for blocks fronting Anzac Parade.

 

The proposed height of the development will not exceed the limit that was placed on the S96A determination. On this basis Condition 3a remains in place.

 

·      The original development application made much of the fact that the building would house a supermarket, something that has been missing in Kensington for a number of years.  This application seeks to remove this provision & break up the space into 4 smaller lots and 8 additional apartments. Already in Kensington there are many small vacant retail spaces & the town centre does not need another 4.  The retail spaces fronting Anzac Parade were supposed to be ‘active’ but there are now many vacant premises.  A supermarket was going to be a point of difference & the original development approval was based on this positive feature being delivered. Removing the supermarket removes a key component of the original approval. I believe that the S96B should be assessed as if it were a new application.  The concessions afforded on the basis that the development was going to provide a supermarket for the benefit of the local community should be revoked.

See key issues section under loss of supermarket. The four new retail premises are of various sizes and will be suitable for a variety of uses. Four separate tenancies break up the frontage contributing to a more active street frontage than that which would occur with one tenancy.

 

Whilst the loss of the supermarket is a negative aspect of the application, the overall bulk and scale at the rear of the development is being reduced as a result of the removal of the supermarket and amenity impacts from servicing a supermarket would also be reduced. The loss of the supermarket is not considered to result in a development that would not be substantially the same as originally approved.

 

 

·      The approved supermarket provision was used as a justification for providing no setback of the podium from the common boundary among other things.  This Section 96 modification does not suggest the setback should be re-instated.  The application to remove provision for a supermarket is disingenuous & should be rejected.

Noted, however the original building envelope at ground level is approved with the podium level with a rear setback. This S96B application reduces the bulk and the development at the rear and effectively increases the rear setback of the closest walls from the eastern rear boundary. Consequently, it is not considered that a greater setback is warranted or grounds for refusal.

·      The Kensington Town Centre DCP sought to ensure quality design of not just the building envelope but the configuration of residential apartments.  One feature most promoted was that of flow through apartments.  The number of ‘flow through’ apartments proposed is still below that expected for a development of this size.

See key issues section under Increased number of apartments.

·      The modification does not address the many concerns raised previous with regards the over-bearing mass of such a large building.

The S96B application reduces the bulk of the development as originally approved and that conditioned under the S96A determination.

·      I should mention that many documents of this DA that are included/listed on the council's website were actually not available for download/viewing (attempts to do so return "file does not exist" errors on 3/2/15). Perhaps this could be rectified, and the period for submissions extended to allow further study?

Documents associated with this S96B application were accessible from the DA tracking website and the time was provided to persons making a submission.

·      An updated geotechnical report should be submitted based on their most recent and comprehensive findings of earthworks and potential impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Upon receipt of this email, the shoring reports were made available from Councils website.

 

It is also noted that the display copy of the S96B application contained a copy of all documentation submitted.

·      A structural engineers report shall also be submitted.

The original conditions and amended conditions are considered suitable for the purposes of assessing the potential impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

 

·      Councils dewatering policy is deficient, lacks any reference to re-injection of water on the subject site outside the perimeter walls which must be located on the subject site. i.e.  Perimeter wall cannot be located on the boundary of the site-area.  If this happens, adjoining surrounding properties lying within the zone of influence of dewatering, will almost certainly suffer subsidence.

The dewatering implications of the proposed development have been assessed by Councils Development engineers. The level of detail submitted relating to dewatering is consistent with Council methodology and requirements of assessment at DA stage. In this respect, conditions imposed on the original and as amended by this S96B application are considered satisfactory.

 

The dewatering implications of the proposed development have been assessed by Ian Young and Associates Pty Ltd (consultant engineering firm) and their report has subsequently been considered by Councils Development Engineering Team. The level of detail submitted with the S96B application relating to dewatering is generally consistent with Council’s requirements and other applications adjacent to this site. The S96B application reduces the depth of excavation when compared with the original development application and the eastern basement wall has been moved off the eastern site boundary. The depth the water table needs to be lowered is now in the order of 5 metres and the dewatering report has indicated that groundwater recharge should not be required. If recharge were to be considered the recharge wells could be located along the perimeters of the pile walls (on the Anzac Parade and Goodwood Street frontages) and in the area between the eastern basement wall and the eastern site boundary.

 

Groundwater dewatering conditions imposed in this S96B application are considered satisfactory and require the applicant to commission preparation of a detailed dewatering plan by suitably qualified engineers, (including consideration of groundwater recharge).

 

4.   Design Review Panel comments:

 

The Panel’s comments on the proposed modifications are provided below:

 

The Panel was informed that this is now a new DA for this major site, although it only covers an adaptation of part of the overall scheme. The Panel understands that the JRPP had approved the previous DA, notwithstanding many and significant design shortcomings. This is the fifth time the Panel has seen a proposal for this major site, the most recently in September 2014.

 

The Panel notes that the applicant has not changed architects, although the architect who attended the meeting continued to show out of date drawings prepared by the previous architect. The Panel reiterates that this is in itself is a cause for concern, for it is widely seen in the architectural profession that a lack of continuity in the design of the project rarely produces good buildings.

 

Few of the Panel's previously stated concerns appear to have been substantively addressed in this application - the proposal remains monolithic and risks having an overbearing presence in the street, with many apartments of compromised amenity and environmental performance.

 

The Panel is familiar with the site and the broader Kensington Town Centre.

 

Since this is a modification that affects only the highlighted parts of the scheme (principally ground and first floor), previous comments are retained only where necessary, with new comments added.

 

1.     Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Anzac Parade in the Kensington Town Centre. Goodwood Street forms the southern boundary, while a mediocre 6 storey apartment building generally conforming to the Town Centre DCP has a party wall on the northern boundary. An assortment of houses and apartment buildings have their rear gardens adjoining the common boundary. The site is extremely well placed in relation to a range of public places and public transport, which is about to be further improved due to the tramline.

The site has an extensive frontage of almost 100 metres to Anzac Parade, is relatively flat, and like most of the centre, is affected by flood freeboard levels.

 

2.       The Scale of the Proposal

 

The main changes seem to be as follows;

 

-       deletion of the third basement level

-         deletion of the supermarket, and replacement by three large retail areas to the street and the addition of a surface car park behind for shoppers

-         reduction in height of the retail at the rear, which has allowed 8 additional units facing the common garden, which has been reduced in size

-         marginal increase in landscaped setback from the properties to the rear, in order to preserve the mature planting in their rear gardens

 

The Panel makes the following comments regarding problems with form and scale that still need to be resolved in the revised proposal;

 

-         The rear setback has been increased in width and predominantly comprises deep soil landscaping to provide a green outlook and screening between buildings. However it remains too narrow, difficult to access for maintenance and impossible for residents to use. The landscape design lacks character and design quality. Improvements should be made to address these issues. The shoppers’ car parking could be more open to it to provide fresh air and a green outlook.

-         The Anzac Parade frontage has been marginally improved by deleting the supermarket, however there should be opportunities for a greater variety of access and size of shop. The elevations seem to show the glazing now coming down to the pavement level (as noted in the previous Panel report), but the construction is not adequately shown on the sections.

-         As suggested, the street awning has been lowered to normal height, and windows light the retail area above the awning, however this is not consistently shown on the drawings submitted.

-         Neither the architectural or landscape drawings show any street trees along what is almost a full block frontage. The awning design should allow for street trees. This has been raised before – still no response from the applicant.

-         The 2 residential entries to Anzac Parade remain rather mean, with narrow deep set entries. The space in front of the lifts seems inadequate, and there is unnecessary conflict with shoppers using the residential foyers to access the street. In contrast, the entry to Goodwood Street is quite generous.

-         The Panel reiterates its concerns regarding building depth and the number of predominantly single orientation units, particularly those facing west to a main road. This remains a major non-compliance with the RFDC’s 18m maximum building depth – the overall building depth is more than 24 metres. This results in an unacceptably deep building, with the middle third of the plan on all levels entirely dependent on artificial light and mechanical ventilation.

-         This situation has now been exacerbated by the addition of 8 effectively single orientation units facing the rear. They claim a degree of cross ventilation by the slots, yet at this level these slots are the main access to the communal gardens, so windows would be compromised for privacy, which is in no way anticipated by the selected window configuration.

-         In addition to the above failing, 2 of the units have amongst the deepest ‘snorkel’ type bedrooms seen by the Panel – the bed is interred more than 8 metres from the edge of the balcony above – a totally substandard arrangement.

-         The Panel supports the light and air in all the common lobbies, though the linking of the cores, seemingly in order to save on lifts, results in exceedingly long common corridors - albeit relived by a small amount of access to light in the middle - natural ventilation should also be available.

-         The information on the sections and elevations is incomplete and full of discrepancies (see below). This calls into question the detail and material selection, which does not appear resolved to DA standard.

Few of the Panel’s suggestions have been taken up –the design remains regressive. The design does not meet SEPP 65 or RFDC standards, and major revisions are required.

 

3.       The Built Form of the Proposal

 

See comments above

 

4.       The Proposed Density

 

The redevelopment of such a well-located site is welcome.

 

However the Panel again notes that the proposal’s floor space needs to be equated to 80 – 85% of the DCP’s envelopes – this needs to be derived by a to-scale graphic comparison between the proposed building against the generic envelope, in both plan and section - this has still not been done satisfactorily – the floor space proposed has further increased and appears to be more than the permitted percentage. This contributes directly to the deficiencies noted above.

 

5.       Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The Panel previously considered that, although the architect claims a reasonable percentage of units are cross-ventilated, too many of the units are predominantly single orientation. The Panel remains unconvinced that the occasional secondary windows on the deep slots would provide enough effective cross ventilation.

If anything these percentages are now likely to be worse, as the 8 new apartments are all predominantly single orientation.

Ceiling fans should be provided for each bedroom and clearly shown on the plans.  This is particularly relevant where the bedroom is deep within the plan and the cross ventilation is compromised. The Panel advises against having ‘snorkel’ or internalised bedrooms that are compromised in terms of natural ventilation. - Not done.

Window operation should be clearly marked on all windows on the elevations – including any clerestory windows. All units should have balcony doors and windows that can be secure, open-able and weather-sheltered to allow cross ventilation at night or when the apartment is not occupied. – Still not done.

Given the above, the building will be heavily reliant on artificial cooling and lighting therefore environmental performance is considered substandard and continues to fail SEPP 65 and RFDC requirements.

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

The landscape information provided is scant, and lacking in detail and design consideration.

The following landscape issues are inadequately considered and require further design resolution;

-         Inadequate sections are shown through the podium. The podium roof terrace should be coordinated with the service and exhaust risers, which all have clearances to communal areas. This has the potential to severely compromise the landscape, and needs to be resolved

-         The Panel is concerned that the maintenance required for the proposed landscape areas, such as they are, have not been considered.

-         No reliable soil depths are indicated on either the architectural or landscape drawings - this does not meet either SEPP 65 or Council's submission requirements

-         An inadequate planting schedule has been provided, including species, indicative numbers, sizes etc.

-         Are external clothes lines provided?

-         No information has been provided that shows how privacy to the rear neighbours would be achieved from the common terrace and pool. The landscape amenity of the properties to the rear remain severely compromised, and their existing trees would be imperiled by the deep excavation and height of the party wall along the entire boundary.

-         Privacy at podium level between the new rear terraces and the common open space has not been considered.

-         The 4 standard details shown are perfunctory and wholly inadequate for a DA of this size

-         No street trees are proposed to either frontage (these are essential and should be as large as possible), nor are any details of public domain improvements indicated

The extent of landscape has decreased and its poor design and documentation does not meet SEPP 65 and RFDC standards.

 

7.     The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

 

The Panel reiterates multiple concerns regarding residential amenity, and notes the lack of any design response to the following issues;

-         the excessive glass to glass building depth of 23.7m for the lower 4 residential levels far exceeds the 18 metres maximum set out in the RFDC. Recent research is indicating that about 15 metres glass to glass is the maximum for effective cross ventilation in units, so the few genuine dual aspect units at the lower levels still would not have a good internal environment

-         there are too many single orientation units throughout, yet an additional 8 have been included. Single orientation apartments should be minimized, and more use made of the slots provided

-         there are too many embedded and ‘snorkel’ type bedrooms, and the occasional internal room. Instead 2 more extended snorkel types have been added.

-         virtually all bathrooms, laundries and ensuites are internalised, and would rely on artificial light and mechanical ventilation all day and night. Many bathrooms have an external wall to the slots - which would be ideal for openable windows - why hasn't this been carried out, as suggested?

-         almost no kitchen complies with the RFDC requirement to be within 8 metres of the openings to the exterior

-         the single orientation units on the Podium Level could benefit from parts with a greater ceiling height, or other sectional ideas, such as skylights / shafts etc – this could be skilfully done, and demonstrated in detailed sections. Yet this has not been attempted.

-         in detailed design, each unit should have a range of openings and weather shelter is important, yet this has not been attempted

-         The perforated screens to the west elevation seem to have more concern with aesthetics than acoustic or thermal performance. The Panel has discussed with the applicant the need for acoustic and sunshade devices on the west.  Perforated soffit material to the balconies and other such strategies remain to be investigated.

 

8.     The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

The proposal provides good surveillance of the street and perimeter garden areas. The entry paths are clearly arranged, with good address and way-finding.

As noted above, the site and mix of uses is complex and the Panel was informed that BCA advice was sought and incorporated.

 

Despite the removal of the supermarket, the double driveway to Goodwood Street remains overstated, which would create avoidable conflicts with pedestrians.

 

9.     Social issues

 

The intensification of such well-placed sites can be socially beneficial. The introduction of  garden units at podium level has some pluses, however the rear common landscaped garden has been significantly reduced in size and utility. The pool seems over scaled, and the useable area could be usefully increased if connected to the widened landscape strip at ground floor.

 

Despite the deletion of the supermarket, the proposed arrangement of the retail to the street would result in a monotonous streetscape, with no diversity of retail frontage. This could rob Anzac Parade of vibrancy – opposite to the DCP intent.

 

The Panel supports the reduction in parking caused by the deletion of the supermarket. A minimarket, with far less or no parking, would have a much better presence in Kensington's shopping strip.

 

The division / security between the public and private lobbies, when accessed from the car park risks causing CPTED problems. As discussed at the meeting, the Panel strongly recommends that the residential lobbies are secure and separate from the commercial passageways, particularly after hours.

 

10.   The Aesthetics of the Proposal

 

The proposal lacks the thought needed to the detailed design and materials palette. The Panel is concerned that the larger buildings in Kensington should be designed and built with robust materials and an enduring character. Large rendered and painted surfaces, for example, are likely to present on-going maintenance problems for an Owners Corporation. 1:50 part elevations / sections and showing colours and materials should be part of the DA drawing set to remove ambiguity – instead the larger scale sections and part elevations provided are poor and full of inconsistencies. The detailed design and material palette are notional and have not been sufficiently developed to be convincing.

 

There appears to have been little attempt to advance the architectural resolution of the design. The information presented appears uncoordinated, lacks detail and constructional reality. for example;

-         the cantilevered awning roof above level 10, which appears to be such a distinctive feature of the scheme, lacks any structure.

-         the privacy screens at levels 8 and 9 which could be very prominent in 3d, are not clearly illustrated

-         there remains scant information on the awning or the circular elements, their material, support, detail

-         the pictures, montages and larger scale elevation appear unrelated, and do not give a reliable or enforceable aesthetic character to the scheme

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The site is an exceptionally important one, as it has an usually long frontage to Anzac Parade, the area's most important boulevard, which is central to Kensington’s evolving town centre, and has the potential to reinforce the spatial definition and life of the street. It would also become home for hundreds of people for many decades to come.

 

The site's potential has not been realized in either the earlier DA nor this revised submission. The Panel reiterates that the application is deficient in many fundamental aspects, and has shown no signs of design improvement. For example the drawings continue the faults of not showing any relationship to the DCP envelopes, lacking boundary dimensions, not showing surrounding development adequately, nor overall or grid dimensions, nor setbacks from boundaries.

 

The Panel reiterates its previous advice that this application significantly fails SEPP 65’s Good Design Principles and the RFDC standards and that it should be refused.

 

Planner’s Comments:

 

The Panel’s comments relate in large part to aspects of the original approval and the S96A proposed modifications. In respect to the S96A determination several conditions relating to the roof form, use of colour backed glazing, requirement for additional openings between the “slots” will remain and not recommended for deletion as part of the S96B application. Having regard to the majority of other issues associated with this S96B application the following comments are made:

 

Scale of the proposal and Aesthetics

 

  The landscaped area at ground level is largely a buffer zone between the proposed development and the rear properties. It is not considered that this area will be capable of providing any reasonable amenity in relation to usable open space.

  The size of the shops along the Anzac Parade frontage are not changing and condition 23 as amended under S96A requires the submission of additional details including that of the colour backed glass to the ground floor level to be provided to Council for approval. 

  The original determination contained suitable conditions relating to the works within the Public Domain.

  The proposed configuration and access corridors do not markedly change from the original determination by the JRPP. The amenity of these units is considered reasonable in so far as highlight window openings are still being provided along these slots and these apartments have larger open deck areas with more direct access to the communal open space/pool area. Further, management of access along these corridors will likely be limited during appropriate hours.

  Condition 23 of the determination required the provision of colours and materials schedule to be submitted and approved by Councils Director of City Planning prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development. This S96B application contains additional detail relating to the operable metal screens across the face of some apartments. In light of the DRP comments, this condition is further amended requiring a consolidated set of colours and materials finishes schedule (inclusive of sample board, 1:50 sections of the Anzac Parade frontage, roof and plant, rear landscaped areas) shall be required to be submitted to Council for approval prior to a Construction certificate being issued for the development.

  The applicant has submitted a sketch plan showing louvre openings along the eastern elevation in response to the DRP comments recommending improved natural ventilation to the ground level parking area. A condition is included requiring an amended acoustic report ensuring the emissions from the ground level parking satisfy relevant standards


The Proposed Density

  The bulk of the development at the rear has been reduced by virtue of the loss of roof space over the rear of the now removed supermarket.

The Proposed Landscape

  The planting of a row of super advanced (800 litre) evergreen native screening trees (minimum mature height of 10m) and under-storey planting provided, with two separate rows of screening hedges at the Communal Open Space Level (Level 3), will provide suitable amenity for future occupants and neighbours alike.

The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

  The driveway has been reduced in width in accordance with Councils Development engineer’s recommendations.

Social issues

  The rear common landscaped area has been reduced in length by approximately 10m between Sections 9 and 10. However this loss of this open space area is offset by the fact that a portion of this area was largely taken up as a transient area with stairs.

  The retail arrangement along the street remains generally consistent with the S96A modifications. In this respect, there are no significant changes to the street frontage as part of this S96B application. Notwithstanding, condition 23 has been amended under S96A requiring the submission of colours and materials schedule prior to a CC being issued for the development.

5.   Technical Officers Comments:

 

The application has been referred to the relevant technical officers, including where necessary external bodies and the following comments have been provided:-

 

5.1     Development Engineer Referral Comments:

A Section 96(2) application of the approved development has been received which seeks to modify the approved of the approved development by replacing the supermarket at ground floor level with 4 retail tenancies, total reduction of 180sqm in approved gross floor area, changes to basement parking configuration including modification to access ramp and circulation, 8 new 2 bedroom residential units at mezzanine level, changes to loading dock configuration, reduction in total number of car parking from 283 to 200, and increase the overall building height to RL53

 

Original consent: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part six (6), part seven (7) storey mixed use development.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

  Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by ……..

  Plan stamped by Council 8th August 2011;

  Landscape Plans by Site Image, job SS13-2668: Ground Level, dwg 102, issue E; and Level 9 & 10 Planters, dwg’s 103-104, issue C, dated 14.11.14.

 

General Comments

There is no objection to the S96 application subject to the required amendments to conditions outlined in this report.

 


PARKING COMMENTS

The required parking provision has been determined by using the parking rates specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013.

 

Residential Parking

The residential component contains 121 units comprising of 27 x studio, 18 x 1 bedroom, 55 x 2 bedroom & 21 x 3 bedroom.

 

Parking Required   = (27 x 0.5) + (18 x 1) + (55 x 1.2) + (21 x 1.5) + 121/4(visitor)

                            = 13.5 + 18 + 66 + 31.5 + 30 (visitor)

                            = 129 + 30 visitor spaces

                            = 159 spaces

 

Commercial Parking

With the proposed deletion of the supermarket only 26 spaces are now required for the commercial tenancies which is based on the parking rate of 1 space per 40m2. 

 

Total Parking Required = 159 + 26 = 185 spaces

 

Total Parking Provided = 199 spaces (complies)

 

The applicant proposes the basement levels be exclusively for the residents and will contain 153 spaces. Forty six spaces are provided on the ground parking level shared between the visitor spaces for the residents (20) and 26 for the commercial. There is therefore a shortfall of 11 visitor spaces for the residents however the applicant argues they can be shared with the commercial spaces.

 

Development Engineering generally does not favour this approach and prefers resident visitor parking to be separated from the commercial however in consideration of the total number of resident car spaces, which is compliant, and the absence of any other parking issues there is no objection in this instance.

 

Bicycle Parking

For the residential component the development is required to provide bicycle parking at the rate of 1 space per 2 units plus 1 space per 10 units for visitors

 

Bicycle Parking Required = 121 x 0.5 + 121 x 0.1

(Residential)                   = 61 spaces + 12 visitor spaces

 

For the commercial component the development is required to provide bicycle parking at the rate of 1 space per 10 carspaces.

 

Bicycle Parking Required = 26/10

(Commercial)                  = 2.6 = say 3 spaces

 

Twelve bicycle space shave been provide on the ground level which are shared between the residential and commercial visitors while the remainder of the residential component (61 spaces) is provided on the upper basement level. The bicycle provision is there satisfactory.

 

Motorbike Parking

Part B7 of Randwick Council’s DCP requires motorbike parking to be provided at the rate of 5% of the total vehicle parking requirements

 

Parking required = 0.05 x 199 = 10 spaces

 

8 spaces have been provided for residents while 2 spaces have been provided for the commercial. The motorbike provision is therefore satisfactory.

 

It is considered the Section 96 parking provision is satisfactory and condition 44 (fixed) & 115 in the consent are no longer required and may be deleted

 

44.     Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with the following amendments/requirements for parking allocation;

 

a)  A minimum of 72 spaces shall be allocated to the retail component (future supermarket)

 

b)  Visitor parking for the residents must not be shared with the retail component.

 

c)  A minimum of 1 space shall be allocated to  each unit

 

d)  Three or 4 bedroom units shall be given preference if two spaces are intended to be dedicated to a unit.

e)  A minimum of two spaces in the residential parking level shall be dedicated for service and delivery parking

 

f)   Motorbike parking is to be provided at 5% of the total parking provision.

 

g)  Adequate provision is to be made for a minimum of 68 bicycle spaces (including 11 visitor spaces) on the residential parking levels.

 

h)  Adequate provision is to be made for a minimum of 9 bicycle spaces on the main retail parking level.

 

Parking

115.    The PCA shall be satisfied that the parking has been provided and allocated in accordance with the conditions of this consent prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development.

 

Access Driveway

It was specified in the original consent that a driveway width of 7.5m comprising of two trafficable lanes of 3.0m with a 0.5m dividing median would be required. In consideration of the removal of the supermarket & reduced number of spaces a reduced width of 6.0m is now acceptable to Development Engineering.  Condition 42 dot point 2 may therefore be deleted as follows;

 

42.     The internal access driveway must be designed and constructed to  match the alignment levels at the property boundary (as specified by Council) and the driveway must be designed and constructed in accordance with AS2890.1:2004 and the following amendments/requirements:

 

·      A crest at minimum RL 28.08 AHD is to be provided on the driveway for flood protection of the basement.

 

·      The access driveway from Goodwood St to the basement shall be widened to 7.5m consisting of 2 x 3.5m wide trafficable lanes and a 0.5m central traffic island.

 

Flooding

Floor levels and crest in driveway are satisfactory.

 

Waste Management & Loading bay

I spoke with Talebul Islam Council’s Waste Management Coordinator today. No major issues with waste. There are some minor aspects which can be conditioned.

 

Planner’s comments: Waste management conditions have been included in the original determination as well as the previous S96A determination. Having regarded these conditions, it is recommended condition 3e be amended to address the increase in apartments.

 

The loading bays are ok and will be able to accommodate a turning path for Council’s garbage collection vehicle (length 8.0m). There is a minimum overhead clearance required of about 4.4m in this area due to the operating arms of Council’s garbage collection vehicle. It’s not easy to tell on the plans if this has been complied with as there does not appear to be section through the loading bay however based on the floor levels indicated, it appears to be satisfactory. An additional section through the loading bay would be helpful however.

 

Ground Water

Due to the change of the original construction method by Aurecon to a more conventional excavation & dewatering method , some changes to groundwater conditions will be required. There are no issues with this. Condition 28 may be deleted;

 

Basement Construction

28.     To ensure protection of the neighbouring trees adjacent to the eastern boundary and adequately manage groundwater on the site, the excavation and construction of the basement carpark must be in accordance with the construction sequence plans by Aurecon drawing S0001-S005 Job no. 23849 and stamped by Council 11th February 2014 and the following additional requirements;

 

a)  Construction certificate plans showing full details of the construction sequence are to be submitted to and approved  by Council

 

b)  There must be no variation to the construction sequence without the prior approval from Council. The applicant shall note that any request to vary the construction sequence and technique may require a formal amendment to the development consent.

 

c)   A schedule detailing the inspection and certification regime for construction of the basement wall is to be submitted and approved by Council.

 

Alignment Level condition

 

It is noted the alignment level fee has not been added to consent condition 46 and is a Council error. It is recommended that opportunity shall also be taken with this S96 application to correct this error. Condition 46 shall therefore be amended as follows;

 

1.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $4250 calculated at $50.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of Anzac Parade site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Ground Water

Due to the change of the original construction method by Aurecon to a more conventional excavation & dewatering method , some changes to groundwater conditions will be required.. Condition 28 may be deleted;

 

As the construction sequence by Aurecon has been deleted from the application bullet point two and a portion of bullet point 3 in condition 52 may be deleted as follows.

 

52.       As the site is affected by groundwater or fluctuating water table a report must be submitted to and approved by the Certifying Authority, with the Construction Certificate, detailing the proposed methods of excavation and management of groundwater.  The report is to be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Geotechnical and/or Hydro-geological Engineer and shall :

 

·     Include details of compliance with Council’s conditions of consent and any Water Licence from Department of Planning / Department of Water & Energy).

 

·            Demonstrate consistency with the construction sequence plans by Aurecon drawing S0001-S005 Job no. 23849 and stamped by Council 11th February 2014.

 

·      Include details of any proposed connection and or disposal of any groundwater or construction site stormwater to Council’s drainage system.

Note: Based on the construction sequencing plans, no significant dewatering will be required and none will be permitted without the prior approval of Council in writing.

 

Include details of the zone of influence of any possible settlement.

 

·     Include details of any consultation and arrangements made with owners of any potentially affected nearby premises (i.e. in relation to access, monitoring and rectification of possible damage to other premises)

 

·     Include details of groundwater quality and proposed disposal of any potentially contaminated groundwater in accordance with relevant requirements and approvals of the Department of Environment & Climate Change, Council and the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, in an environmentally sensitive manner.

 

·     The location of all pumping equipment in relation to the property boundaries.

 

·     The proposed method of noise attenuation for all pumping equipment, so as not to be more than 5dB (A) greater than the A – weighted L90 background sound pressure level between the hours of 7am to 10pm within any residential premises and not to be audible at all between the hours of 10pm and 7am within any residential dwelling.

 

       A copy of the reports, certification and details of compliance with the conditions of consent must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and a copy must be forwarded to the Council if Council is not the PCA.

 

Condition 118 dot point 3 may also be deleted as follows

 

118.    The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council certification from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer, confirming that;

 

·      The walls of the basement have been fully tanked and waterproofed to prevent the entry of all groundwater in the basement level/s. Certification is to be provided to the certifying authority and Council if Council is not the certifying authority for each level of the basement.

 

·      Any required sub-soil drainage systems have been provided in accordance with the conditions of this consent.

 

·      Inspection and certification has been undertaken and provided in accordance with the schedule approved by Council as required by the conditions of this consent.

 

Neighbours Trees

The amendments proposed as part of this S96B application will impact on condition 32, ‘Protection of neighbours trees’, as follows:

 

·      The setback to be provided between the eastern wall of the basement and the eastern site boundary will be increased from 1200mm at the southern end of the site out to 3000mm; and from 2700mm at the northern end of the site out to 4500mm;

 

·      The eastern wall of the basement will no longer be constructed as per the approved, staged ‘Aurecon shoring scheme’, with the eastern wall now to be built in the same, more traditional method as the rest of the basement.

 

The assessing officer is advised that increasing the setback of the eastern wall from the eastern boundary will be of benefit to these neighbouring trees, as this will minimize both the potential for root damage, and will also reduce the amount of canopy pruning that is required to provide a clearance from the piling rig during construction; and as these amendments can be supported, condition 32 needing to be amended (in red), and will now read as follows:

 

Protection of neighbours trees

32.     In order to ensure retention of those 10 trees located in the rear yards of the adjoining private properties to the east, comprising from south to north, a Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) in 25 Elsmere Street, then starting in the southwest corner of 9-19 Ellesmere Street, two Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowoods), then a row of three Eucalyptus botryoides (Bangalays), another large Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowood), an even larger Eucalyptus saligna (Blue Gum), a Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowood) then a smaller Callistemon viminalis (Weeping Bottlebrush) near the northwest corner of 9-19 Elsmere Street in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of these neighbouring trees, with the position and diameter of both their trunks and canopies to be clearly and accurately shown in relation to all levels of the proposed development.

 

b.       The requirements of the ‘Basement Construction’ condition specified earlier in this report by the Development Engineer must be complied with in relation to preservation of these trees. 

 

c.        Tree numbers must be assigned to each of these individual trees, and are to be included on all plans and correspondence.

 

d.       A consulting Arborist, who holds a minimum of AQF Level V in Arboriculture, and is also a registered member of a nationally recognized organization/association, must be appointed for the duration of works to inspect, monitor, provide recommendations and written reports/certification relating to protection of these trees and compliance with conditions of consent.

 

e.       A separate, practicing Arborist, who holds a minimum of AQF Level III in Arboriculture, and is also a registered member of a nationally recognized organization/association, must also be appointed for the duration of works to physically perform any canopy or root pruning works that is approved via the conditions or joint site inspections with Council.

 

f.        All relevant contact details for both must be provided to Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613), with reports or tree works only to be performed by either of the appointed Arborists, with any changes to either personnel to require the notification of Council in writing.

 

g.       The consulting Arborist must submit to, and have approved by, Council’s Landscape Development Officer, a list of critical stages where joint site inspections will be required, with the adopted schedule to be complied with during the course of works, and must include at minimum, the following hold points:

 

i)      Prior to removal/demolition of existing concrete surfacing and structures along the eastern site boundary;

ii)     Prior to commencement of any works associated with construction of the eastern wall of the basement;

 

iii)    Prior to any root or canopy pruning;

 

iv)    Relevant stages during construction of the eastern wall of the basement, as defined by the Basement Construction condition earlier in this report.

 

h.       As is shown on the Level 1 & 2 plan by MKD Architects, dwg 101, revision E, dated 14.12.14, measurements must be clearly shown on all plans confirming that a minimum distance of at least 3000mm will be maintained from the eastern wall of the basement to the eastern site boundary at the southern end of the site, and will gradually taper out to a distance of at least 4500mm at the northern end of the site.

 

i.        The PCA must ensure that the basement is constructed in accordance with these prescribed setbacks.

 

j.        The consulting Arborist must be present on-site during the initial demolition of surfacing and structures along the eastern site boundary, within their TPZ’s, with all site staff to comply with any instructions issued relating to root and crown protection.

 

k.       Where roots with a diameter of 75mm or more are encountered, which are in direct conflict with the approved works, the Arborist must note the date, location (tree number) and size.

 

l.        Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613) must be contacted, prior to proceeding with any further works, and giving at least 2 working days notice, to inspect the affected area, with the applicant to comply with any instructions issued.

 

m.      Where permission is granted for their pruning, they can be cut cleanly by hand, only by the practicing site Arborist, and using only hand held tools, with the affected area to be backfilled with clean site soil, or; their cut ends wrapped/covered in hessian which is to be kept moist during the course of works.

 

n.       All initial excavations for footings for the low wall shown along the eastern site boundary must be performed under the direct supervision of either site Arborist, with the same procedure described for the basement above in relation to roots to also apply to this wall.

 

o.       Any roots encountered with a diameter of less than 75mm that are in direct conflict with the approved works and need to be pruned may be cut cleanly by the practicing site Arborist.

 

p.       Following demolition of existing structures/surfacing along the eastern site boundary, 1.8m high chainwire fencing must be erected adjacent their trunks (extent to be as per their individual TPZ’s, to be confirmed by the consulting Arborist), to which, safety tape/para-webbing/shade cloth or similar shall be permanently attached.

 

q.       Where trunk or branch protection is required, this must comprise geo-textile, underfelt or layers of Hessian, which shall be wrapped around the affected areas, to which, lengths of 50mm x 100mm hardwood timbers, spaced at 150mm centres shall be placed around the circumference of their trunks or branches, and are to be secured by 8 gauge wires or steel strapping at 300mm spacing. NO nailing to the trunk.

 

r.        These measures must be installed prior to the commencement of construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed (or until they need to be pruned), to which, signage containing the following words shall be clearly displayed and permanently attached: “TREE PROTECTION, DO NOT REMOVE/ENTER".

 

s.       In order to prevent soil/sediment being washed over their root systems, erosion control measures shall be provided at ground level along the eastern boundary, for the extent of their TPZ’s.

 

t.        Where ground protection is required along the eastern boundary, so as to prevent soil compaction and root damage, it shall comprise strapped together rumble boards, plywood or similar, with mulch to be provided beneath, and must remain in place for the duration of works, until such time as the approved landscaping is being installed. Refer point 4.5.3 & Figure 4 of AS 4970 – 2009: Protection of trees on development sites.