Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 12 May 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 1300 722 542

Fax: 02 9319 1510

 council@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 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, 12 May 2015 at 6:00pm

 

 

Committee Members:         The Mayor T Seng, Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, D’Souza, Garcia, Matson, Moore (Chairperson), Nash (Deputy Chairperson), Neilson, Roberts, Shurey, Smith, Stavrinos and Stevenson

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

NOTE:   At the Extraordinary Meeting held on 28 September 2004, the Council resolved that the Planning Committee whose membership consists of all members of the Council be constituted as a committee with full delegation to determine matters on the agenda.

 

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 14 April 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.

D31/15     1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/B) (DEFERRED) 1

D32/15     127 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (DA/872/2014)................ 3

D33/15     14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (DA/159/2015)..................... 9

D34/15     10 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/20/2015) ............................. 15

D35/15     48 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA/931/2014)...................... 35

D36/15     9 Figtree Avenue, Randwick (DA/861/2014)......................... 47

D37/15     165 Prince Edward Street, Malabar (DA/727/2014/A)............ 57

D38/15     32-34 Beach Street, Coogee (DA/27/2015).......................... 63

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D31/15

 

 

Subject:                  1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/B) (Deferred)

Folder No:               DA/994/2011/B

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

The proposal is for 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

 

The application was recommended for refusal and reported to the Planning Committee on 8 April 2015 at the request of Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos and Nash. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

“(Bowen/Stavrinos) that the application be deferred to the next Council meeting to enable the applicant to arrange a speaker.”

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 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.

Executive Summary Report - 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Included under separate cover

2.

DA Compliance Report - 1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D32/15

 

 

Subject:                  127 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (DA/872/2014)

Folder No:               DA/872/2014

Author:                    City Plan Services, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations, ground floor and first floor additions to the existing dwelling house including new northern side carport and front boundary fence (Heritage item)

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               Mrs G N Hay

Owner:                    Mrs G N Hay

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview20421.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the applicant is a family member of a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling and the construction of a rear extension to accommodate a secondary dwelling. The works consist of the following:

 

·      Minor internal alterations to the front of the principal dwelling including new windows to the living room and master bedroom on the side facades;

·      Extension of the rear section of the principal dwelling to accommodate new living and dining rooms, kitchen, bathroom, laundry and roofed deck facing the rear yard;

·      A secondary dwelling attached to the rear of the primary dwelling; and

·      Replace the existing single garage with an open pergola structure carport located behind the building line.

 

The proposal will retain the front original part of the current dwelling including original roof form to Wentworth Street.  The proposed works are either largely internal or located to the rear of the property.  Works that would affect the exterior of the building will not be clearly visible from the public domain.

 

Site

 

No. 127 Doncaster Avenue (Lot 54 Section 14 DP 7698) is occupied by a freestanding heritage listed dwelling with a detached single garage.  The property is rectangular in shape and with a frontage of 14.02m to Doncaster Avenue and a depth of 42.725m.  The total site area is 598.2m2.  The large rear yard faces an open storm water channel.

 

dwelling

Figure 1: No. 127 Doncaster Avenue

The surrounding area consists of predominantly single storey residential properties.  Whilst many buildings have been substantially altered, there has been very little redevelopment evident within the streetscape. 

 

Submissions

 

Notification of the application was completed in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. One submission was received, from the owners/occupants of No. 129 Doncaster Avenue, who are in support of the proposal but are seeking some minor amendments.

 

Consideration of the issues raised in the submission is provided in the following table:

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed southern elevation includes a new window servicing the front bedroom, which will be immediately adjacent to the adjoining property’s driveway and therefore subject to headlight and acoustic impacts from vehicles entering and exiting No. 129 Doncaster Avenue. 

 

The residents of No. 129 intend to carry out renovations to their property which would include the insertion of a window along the northern elevation of the lounge room of No. 129 opposite the proposed window.  It is therefore requested that the proposed new window would be either of a highlight nature (minimum sill height 1.6m) or be of an opaque nature

 

It is considered that any potential headlight and acoustic impacts would be minimal.  The residents of No. 127 Doncaster Avenue, the subject of such potential impacts, have expressed no concern in this regard.

 

 

 

Any future renovations to No. 129 Doncaster Avenue are not a relevant consideration.

The proposal includes an elevated rear deck with privacy screening, which would allow for direct overlooking in between the screens to the adjoining property’s primary internal and external living areas. 

 

It is suggested that fixed angle louvres be provided to achieve mutual privacy between the two properties. 

The applicant has agreed to provide fixed angle louvres in order to achieve mutual privacy for both properties

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage

No. 127 Doncaster Avenue is listed as a heritage item, of low local significance, under RLEP 2012. Therefore a heritage assessment was undertaken by Council’s external heritage consultant.  The heritage consultant raised the following issues:

 

“The current application has adopted the approach employed for contributory buildings in Conservation Areas, the guidelines for such locating new works behind principle ridgelines in a manner retaining the core form and detail of the original roof form and its contributory value to the Conservation Area.  In doing so the applicant has assessed the rear areas of the residence as representative rather than of high significance.

 

The proposed works represent a substantial elongation of the rear areas to the residence employing a gabled rather than a hipped roof.  It is clear from the street view that these will be seen from the street and that considerable care in detailing and design will be required to limit impact upon the significance of the building.  Much of the side elevation seen from the street is able to be screened by the proposed carport, but this screening effect is considered to be limited by the current flat roofed design of the carport.  A car port designed with a tile roof matching the finish and slope of the existing front verandah and sloping to a lower springing point than the verandah would serve as a more effective screen for the proposed additions.

 

The proposed development substantially maintains the established form and massing of the existing residence but the length of the seamless additions and the rising ramp, both viewed from the street tend to distract from the core of the residence.

 

Whilst the proposed additions by virtue of location and material finish maintain the construction evident in the forward area of the residence; the length of additions, the projecting ramp and the height of the proposed carport detract from the original scale and form of the existing residence.  There appears a definite need for a visual break either in the form of a screen or an inset in the line of the building along the proposed northern elevation.”

 

In order to achieve additions cohesive with the identified Heritage Significance of the residence the heritage consultant made the following recommendations:

 

1.  The proposed carport to the northern side elevation is amended.  Amendment should provide a tiled roof sloping to the front and rear, the pitch matching that of the existing front verandah and the springing point set below that of the verandah roof.  Tiles should match those to the existing residence.  The purpose of the amendment is to mitigate the visual impact of the rear additions and ramp.

 

2.  Alternate means of screening the rear additions may be provided, however the modification of the carport is recommended as the approach that achieves the applicants brief whilst best serving to lessen the impact of the overall works.

 

3.  New windows to north and south side elevations of the original residence are to maintain the form, dimensions, detail and construction of windows existing in these elevations.

 

4.  No existing external brickwork (either face or common) is to be painted.

 

In light of the above comments, revised plans were submitted on 31 March 2015.  The heritage consultant has reviewed the amended plans and considers them to be satisfactory.

 

Flooding

In 2013 Council adopted the Kensington/Centennial Park Flood Study, which indicates that there is potential for significant flooding during major storm events within the drainage reserve adjacent to the rear of the subject site. 

 

A preliminary investigation by Council’s Development Engineer indicates flood depths of over a metre are expected in this area during the 1 in 100 year flood event.  Therefore Council indicated that a flood report would be required for the site.

 

That flood report identifies that the following flood levels affect the site:

 

Flood Event                                            Flood Level

PMF (Probable Maximum Flood)                  RL 26.25 AHD

0.2% AEP (1 in 500yr) Flood                      RL 24.42 AHD

1% AEP (1 in 100yr) Flood                         RL 24.01 AHD

5% AEP (1 in 20yr) Flood                          RL 23.51 AHD

 

Consequently the flood report concludes the following:

 

“Part B8 of Council’s DCP 2013 currently requires the following in relation to flood planning levels.

·      All new habitable floor areas are to be provided at or above the level of the 1% AEP (1 in 100yr) flood + 0.5m freeboard.

For subject site the flood planning level is therefore RL 24.51 AHD

·      All new hardstand carspaces are to be provided at or above the level of the 5% AEP (1 in 20yr flood) i.e above RL 23.51 AHD

 

The above flood planning levels have the following implications for the proposed development

 

·      The lower ground level is shown as 23.01 AHD and so will be inundated by floodwaters up to a metre in depth during the 1 in 100yr flood. As it is unlikely the lower ground level can be practically raised to RL 24.51, the application cannot be supported in its present form.

 

·      It is noted the upper ground floor has been provided at RL 25.71 or 1.2m above the flood planning level and is therefore considered satisfactory.  

 

For Development Engineering to be in a position to support the proposal, the lower ground level must be deleted from the application while the upper ground level shall be proposed as a piers/suspended slab type construction. Amended plans demonstrating these amendments shall be submitted and assessed by Development Engineering prior to the issuing of any consent.”

 

A meeting was subsequently held on 6 February 2015 to discuss the potential flooding issues.  The conclusion of this meeting was that the development could not be accepted in its previous form.  Revised plans were subsequently submitted on 31 March 2015.  The Development Engineer has not raised any objections to the revised scheme.

 

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 proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.  The built form has been well considered, and potential design issues have been resolved.

 

A comprehensive assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken and all supporting information has been reviewed against the applicable environmental planning provisions as indicated in the above table.

 

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. 872/2014 for ground floor and first floor alterations to the existing dwelling house including a new northern side carport and front boundary fence, at No. 127 Doncaster Avenue, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 127 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D33/15

 

 

Subject:                  14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (DA/159/2015)

Folder No:               DA/159/2015

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

 

Proposal:                 New front hard stand car space

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mr C J Cole

Owner:                    Mr C J Cole

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview32162.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application was assessed by the external consultant and is referred to Council for determination as a neighbouring property owner is a Randwick city Councillor.

Proposal

 

Approval is sought to construct an uncovered single car space in front of an existing semi-detached dwelling at 14 Chapman Street, Maroubra. The dwelling currently has no off street parking. The proposed building works comprise of a new reinforced concrete slab to the front courtyard, new reinforced concrete crossover to Chapman Street, re-locate existing stormwater pipe and kerb outlet as well as a new garden to the east front boundary.

 

Site

The site is located on the northern side of Chapman Avenue. The site has a frontage of 6m to Chapman Avenue, site depth of 36.57m and a site area of 225sqm. The site contains a single storey semi-detached dwelling. The site has no rear access.

 

DSC_0001

Figure 1: Front elevation of existing semi-detached dwelling at 14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra.

 

DSC_0005

Figure 2: Surrounding sites in Chapman Avenue which have uncovered car spaces in front of the dwelling.

 

 

DSC_0007

Figure 3: More uncovered car spaces in Chapman Avenue

 

DSC_0009

Figure 4: Further examples of semi-detached dwellings with uncovered car spaces in front of the dwelling in Chapman Avenue.

 

DSC_0011

Figure 5: Front uncovered car spaces are common place in Chapman Avenue as demonstrated by this streetscape photo and the preceding photos.

 

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.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick LEP

Zoning

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under the RLEP 2012. The proposed works are permissible and satisfy the zone objectives as it improves the function of the subject dwelling and maintains the amenity of the surrounding residents.

 

Randwick DCP

The proposed off street parking is consistent with the provisions provided in C2 6.3 of the RDCP 2013 which states that off street parking may be provided forward of the front façade alignment in attached dwellings when the provision of parking facilities behind the front façade alignment is not feasible. It is also noted that this is a development pattern which is already established in the existing streetscape of Chapman Avenue, Maroubra.

 

The subject site is narrow and has a site width of 6m which makes parking behind the building alignment impractical. The proposed car space has been suitably designed to complement the dwelling house and improves amenity while also incorporating landscaping into the site frontage on the eastern side.

 

The dimensions of the car space (5.4m x 2.4m) comply and allow for off-street parking.

 

Currently the subject site has no parking which is non-compliant and the proposed car space will be compliant.

 

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

 

The provision of additional landscaping will further enhance the streetscape presentation.

 

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 uncovered car space improves the amenity of the subject property in a manner which is compatible with the host dwelling and the broader streetscape along both sides of Chapman Avenue.

 

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. 159/2015 for the proposed uncovered single car space in front of the existing dwelling at No. 14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

2 (a)   Additional landscaping shall be provided to the east of the car space and along the site frontage to the east of the car space.

 

(b)   That the area east of the approved car space within the front setback shall be amended to be landscaped area (approximate dimensions of 5.9m x 2.5m). In this regard, the reinforced concrete slab shown on the approved plan shall be replaced by the increased landscaped area with details to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. The landscaping should incorporate native species which should have a mature height of no greater than 600mm along the frontage to retain sight distances when reversing out of the driveway. The garden bed along the eastern side shall have a minimum depth of 600mm and shall return along the street frontage for a distance of 2.5m from the eastern boundary. A brick fence forming the southern side of the planter bed should be provided along the site frontage to match the height of the adjoining front fence at 16 Chapman Avenue.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Chapman Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D34/15

 

 

Subject:                  10 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/20/2015)

Folder No:               DA/20/2015

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and three storey addition to the rear of the existing semi-detached dwelling.

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               William Cotsis

Owner:                    William Cotsis

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview21394.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

1.       Executive Summary

 

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

 

The subject development application seeks consent for alterations and construction of a three storey addition to the rear of the existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Bond Street in Maroubra. The site is currently improved by an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling. The subject dwelling is part of a pair, attached to 12 Bond Street. The surrounding development is residential in character, with a mix of dual occupancy development, free standing dwellings and three to four storey residential flat buildings.

 

The proposal was notified to the surrounding properties and received one objection, primarily concerned with view loss and visual bulk.

 

The proposal fails to comply with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to building height, floor space ratio and the objectives for the low density residential zone. The proposal further fails with regard to the Randwick Development Controls Plan 2013 in respect to wall height, view sharing, building design, parking and additional design provisions for semi-detached dwellings.

 

The non-compliance the maximum wall height and building height are the main contributing factors for the view loss.

 

The reasonableness of the proposal, in terms of view loss, has been assessed using the planning principle established by the Land and Environment Court in Tenacity Consulting Ply Ltd v Warringah Council proceedings. The assessment of the proposal in accordance with the principle is found to be unreasonable in terms of its identified view impacts on 8 Bond Street and that a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same or greater development potential and amenity than that offered by the proposal; whilst simultaneously reducing the impact on the views from 8 Bond Street to a more reasonable and acceptable level.

 

For the above stated reasons, the subject application should not be supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

2.       Proposal

 

The application proposes alterations and construction of a three storey addition to the rear of the existing semi-detached dwelling.

 

The details of the proposed works are as follows:

 

·        Modification and extension of the ground floor level to the boundary and within the rear setback.

·        Internal reconfiguration of the ground floor including second living room, increased dining room, increased kitchen, new bathroom and new laundry;

·        Three storey ‘tower’ style addition to the rear comprising:

Ground floor: Living room;

First storey: Bathroom and wardrobe;

Second storey: Bedroom.

·        Installation of skylight into existing dwelling attic. It is noted that the addition of the skylight and the potential attic floor to ceiling height of 2.4m may lead to the attic being utilised as a habitable area, not sought within the current works; and

·        Steel framed glass awning attached to the rear of the proposed ‘tower’.

 

 

 

 

3.       Subject Site and Surrounding Area

 

The site is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 213668, known as No.10 Bond Street, Maroubra. The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. The subject site is located on the northern side of Bond Street. Current improvements to the site include a semi-detached dwelling and two rear sheds. The semi-detached is part of a pair, attached to 12 Bond Street. The site has a single frontage to Bond Street and is generally rectangular in shape. Whilst a significant cross fall exists through Bond Street from west to east, the subject site itself is has been leveled at the rear of the site. The front setback contains a steep cross fall both west to east and north to south.

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Western, side boundary

40.27m

255.6m2

Northern, rear boundary

6.05m

Southern, front boundary (Bond Street)

3.35m

Eastern, side boundary (party wall)

40.27m

 

The locality is generally residential in nature and characterised by a mix of semi-detached dwellings, dual occupancy development, free standing dwellings and three and four storey residential flat buildings.

 

The density through the street transitions from low density residential to medium density residential towards the eastern end of Bond Street. A pair of semi-detached dwellings are located adjacent to the site, however have not retained their symmetry. The symmetry between the two was lost within the 2002 approval, prior to the adoption of the current 2013 controls.

 

The existing building and those surrounding generally do not have any individual heritage significance within the provisions of RLEP 2012, with the exception of the locally recognised Bond Street Sandstone Retaining Wall. It is considered that the proposed development will not impact on the heritage significance of the Bond Street Sandstone Retaining Wall.

Image 1: The subject site as viewed from Bond Street. The subject dwelling is painted in white, located to the left of the frame.

Image 2: Current streetscape, as provided by Jon Jacka Architect.

 

 

 


Image 3:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 3: Streetscape view of proposed development, provided by Jon Jacka Architect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Image 4: Streetscape view of the proposed development, provided by Jon Jacka Architect

 

Image 5: Southeast and southwest elevations of the proposed development, provided by Jon Jacka Architect

 

 

 

 

Image 6: Streetscape elevation, provided by Jon Jacka Architect.

 

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:

 

·      8 and 8A Bond Street, Maroubra

 

Objection 1:

 

Issue

Comment

Tree protection on objector’s site.

Appropriate conditions were included by Council’s development engineers in the event of approval.

Protection of existing retaining wall between the sites.

Appropriate conditions were included by Council’s development engineers in the event of approval.

 

Note: The objector acknowledged within the submission that some view loss was explained to them by the Applicant and had sought external advice. The submission said that the Applicant explained to the objector that the current views obtained by 8 and 8A Bond Street would not be materially affected.

 

Given the potential for view loss, a site inspection was organised to determine the extent of the view loss with Council’s height poles. Upon seeing the potential view loss and visual bulk represented by the poles, the objector wished to submit a revised submission.

 

Objection 2: Submitted by Milestone on behalf of 8/8A Bond Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

View loss from private open space, first floor balcony, master bedroom and ground floor living/dining room of iconic views to Malabar Headland and Maroubra Bay.

A view loss assessment was submitted within the objection against the planning principle established within Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2010]. The objection concluded in the view loss assessment that the loss of views was ‘severe’ and unreasonable given the possible design solutions and non-compliance with Council’s controls.

Refer to ‘key issues’, Section 5.6 for discussion/view loss assessment.

Visual bulk and scale

The visual bulk presented to the adjoining site is considered to be a direct result of the non-complying wall height and unsympathetic design of the proposed development with regard to the existing semi-detached dwelling.

Site is not a sloping site; therefore the 8m wall height does not apply.

Refer to ‘key issues’, Section 3.2 for discussion.

Structures above the maximum wall height are intended for roof elements only.

Refer to ‘key issues’, Section 3.2 for discussion.

Nil setback results in additional visual bulk.

Refer to ‘key issues’, Section 3 for discussion.

Proposal sets the benchmark for redevelopment by the adjoining semi. The cumulative impacts will result in adverse environmental impacts.

Refer to ‘key issues’, Section 4.2 for discussion.

Note: Pictures of the anticipated view loss were submitted with the objection, taken by the owner whilst Council was onsite with Council’s height pole.

 

·          Response from Architect

In response to the additional submission from Milestone on behalf of 8/8A Bond Street, the applicant provided the following:

 

o    A view loss assessment was undertaken in the response. The applicant concluded that the view loss of 8 Bond Street was ‘negligible’, retained all views from the first floor living areas, balconies, terraces and courtyards. The applicant put forward that the rear (master) bedroom is the only room which results in adverse impacts from the proposed development and that numerous other vantage points exist within the rear dual occupancy.

o    The subject site (10 Bond) does not currently obtain any views of the water. Views will be achieved through the proposed development.

o    The subject development is not an overdevelopment of the site and well below a feasible numerical floor space ratio.

o    A ‘complying’ development, with a view of maximising Council’s current controls, will result in extensive view loss. The alternative ‘complying’ development will completely eradicate the views obtained by 8 Bond Street. Photos were provided by the applicant in this regard.

o    The development meets the maximum building height.

o    The site is considered as a sloping site, given the difference in height between 8/8A Bond Street, 10 Bond Street and 12 Bond Street.

o    The proposal is unique and has been crafted to address the specific context of its site. Protection of the views obtained by 8/8A Bond Street has been carefully considered by the applicant.

 

o    An assessment of height and bulk was provided in accordance with the planning principle Veloshin v Randwick Council [2007]. The assessment by the applicant against the principle concluded that:

 

§ The proposal was not an overdevelopment of the site (with regard to FSR),

§ Complies with the DCP with the exception of wall height and side setbacks,

§ Acceptable height and bulk is proposed with regard to surrounding residential flat buildings,

§ Lack of existing or desired future character for the streetscape,

§ Current DCP controls do not reflect the existing character of Bond Street,

§ Positive contribution will be made to the streetscape by the proposed development. 

 

o    8/8A Bond Street should be assessed as one property.

o    The development at 8/8A Bond Street imposes privacy and visual bulk impacts to the subject site and is not representative of the subdivision pattern. The dual occupancy on the objector’s site does not comply with the current controls.

o    Trees located along the boundary (located on the objector’s site) will restrict views.

o    Views obtained by 8 Bond Street exist due to 10 Bond Street remaining undeveloped. The objector’s site has taken all views from 6 Bond Street.

o    Milestone is mistaken in its interpretation of the DCP wall height control and has given ‘extremely bad advice’ to the objectors.

o    ’Should the proposal be refused we will have to fall back on the alternative option, which has a far broader and more significant effect to the views of the neighbouring property…we don’t believe there would be any grounds for Council to refuse the alternative option…given compliance with all the development standards and numerous precedents of similar additions in the locality’.

o    Milestone’s view loss pictures do not account for perspective.

o    The accuracy of Council’s height pole could be questioned, especially with regard to the location.

o    A further comment was received by Planet Urban, Planning and Development Consultants within the submission; that reviewed, provided commentary and considered the response to represent a thorough analysis of the issues.

 

·          Response from Applicant/Owner

A response was also received from the applicant with regard to the Milestone submission which replied as follows:

o    The RDCP 2013 is not relevant for the subject proposal as there is no roof structure. 

o    The objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone have been fulfilled.

o    The proposal meets the maximum building height.

o    The proposal does not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining sites with regard to visual bulk, privacy, overshadowing and view loss.

o    New conifers have been planted by the objector which will completely screen the proposed development.

o    Council has an obligation to facilitate the proposal as it is permissible development.

o    Larger building heights are found in surrounding streets including Bellevue Street and Bona Vista Avenue.

o    Council has approved development which is well in excess of the wall height (with regard to the above Bellevue and Bona Vista sites).

o    The RDCP 2013 is not relevant and the overall building height standard is the only relevant planning control, as found in Ballas Medes Constructions Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2011].

o    Wall height control is irrelevant as no view loss occurs as a result of the non-compliance.

 

·          Response from Objector/ Milestone

Milestone provided a response with regard to the applicant/owners submission (Note: a copy of the architect’s submission was not provided to Milestone within the GIPA request):

 

o    Whilst the maximum height allowable under the LEP is 9.5m, achieving the maximum building height is not a legal entitlement and the other relevant standards and controls must also be satisfied.

o    The objectives regarding building height have not been achieved and are incompatible with the scale of the desired future character.

o    Severe view loss of iconic views occurs as a result of the proposed development.

o    The proposal will result in an overbearing visual imposition when viewed from the objector’s site.

o    A view loss assessment should be undertaken by applicant.

o    The RDCP 2013 is a relevant consideration.

o    An undesirable precedent will be set by the proposed development with regard to the symmetrical semi-detached dwellings.

o    The residential flat buildings within Bellevue Street and Bona Vista Avenue provided by the owner were likely constructed prior to the commencement of the EP&A Act 1979 and not representative of the current controls.

o    Reliance on residential flat building development to justify amenity, view and visual imposition impacts of the proposal is inappropriate.

5.  Key Issues

 

·          Clause 4.3: Building Height

At its highest point, the proposal results in a variation to the height control of RLEP 2012, proposing 9.58 metres as measured from existing ground level (RL39.93). The proposal is not accompanied by an objection under Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012, a statutory requirement in the event of any variation to the standard.

 

The relevant objectives relating to building height are as follows:

 

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

 

(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.

 

Bond Street is primarily characterised as two storey development including semi-detached dwellings, free standing dwellings and dual occupancy to the western end of the street, where the subject site is located. The eastern end of the street contains residential flat buildings and is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential.

 

The proposed development seeks approval for a three storey development to the rear of the site. The current planning controls seek to retain low density development at the western end of Bond Street. The proposed building height and relatively close 985mm setback with regard to the height from the objector’s site are considered to result in unreasonable visual bulk towards 8 Bond Street, contributing to an enclosed private open space by surrounding development and visual bulk presented to the eastern facing windows.

 

The applicant has provided five sites that had development higher than the proposal located on Bellevue Street and Bonavista to justify utilising the 9.5m height limit. These developments are not located on the subject street, but are visible from Bond Street. The sites provided by the applicant are generally residential flat buildings and as such are not comparable in scale with a semi-detached dwelling house nor appropriate development to justify the visual bulk of the proposal.

 

Whilst a mix of dwelling stock exists within the street, it is clear that the controls seek to retain low density residential. The proposed development seeks to justify its bulk through the use of medium density development, demonstrating that the development is inconsistent with the future desired low density character for the western end of Bond Street.

 

Discussed in detail further in Section 5.6, the proposed building height also results in unnecessary view loss to the adjoining site at 8 Bond Street. The combined effect of the other non-compliances relating to view loss, visual bulk and future desired character are considered to be fatal to the application.

 

The proposal is recommended for refusal based on these non-compliances and the absence of a valid Clause 4.6 variation.

 

·          Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio

The relevant objectives relating to floor space ratio are as follows:

 

(1)(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,

(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 development standards for building height and floor space ratio seek to provide a building envelope that will minimise the development impacts to surrounding development with regard to scale, compatibility with existing and future desired character, visual bulk, privacy, overshadowing and view loss.

 

With these objectives in mind the proposed building envelope comprising a three storey addition to the rear of the existing dwelling results is considered excessive, resulting in unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the existing rear dual occupancy at 8 Bond Street with regard to view loss and visual bulk. The anticipated view loss from the first floor balcony and master bedroom are considered to be substantially mitigated through a more skillful design, discussed in further detail in Section 5.6.

 

The addition will also impact the streetscape in that the visual character of the proposal does not relate to the pair of semi-detached dwellings and informs the potential future construction of a first floor addition of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 12 Bond Street. Such an addition is not supported by the design guidelines within the RDCP 2013 for semi-detached dwellings.

 

The dispersion of floor space ratio in the form of a tower as proposed is not considered to meet the relevant objectives and will adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining site at 8 Bond Street with regard to visual bulk and view loss and result in a poor outcome for the streetscape.

·          Clause 4.6: Objection to a development standard

The applicant has submitted that the building height of the proposal is 9.5m. The definition of building height within the RLEP 2012 is provided below:

 

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

 

The building height, as measured from existing ground level provided within the survey submitted with the application is 9.58m as measured from RL33.93. It is likely that the applicant has measured from the new finished floor level of RL34.010, however in accordance with the RLEP 2012 definition, the correct height of the proposal is 9.58m.

 

In the absence of seeking an exception to the non-compliance with the building height development standard under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012, the application must fail.

 

·          Section 3: Side Setback

The proposal seeks to construct the ground floor addition to the western boundary, varying the required 900mm side setback control within the RDCP 2013. The DCP provides that side setbacks are devised to ensure adequate levels of building separation, provide access, allow for landscaping, protect privacy (both visual and acoustic) and allow natural lighting and ventilation.

 

An objection was raised by the adjoining site with regard to the nil setback sought within the application. The objector’s site at 8 Bond Street is significantly raised above the subject site with a retaining wall achieving a height above the site of approximately 2.8m, at RL36.78. The proposed ground floor addition results in a height of RL36.71. The ground floor addition is not considered to result in any detrimental visual or privacy impacts, will not impact on light and ventilation received by the adjoining site, provides suitable access to the dwelling and bin storage area behind the front façade.

 

The non-compliance with the side setback along the ground level is not considered to contribute to the refusal of the application and generally meets the objectives regarding side setbacks.

 

·          Section 3.2: Wall height

The DCP identifies that dwellings on sloping sites may achieve eight (8) metres in wall height and anticipates that some variation in the wall height standard may eventuate due to site topography. Whilst it is acknowledged that Bond Street contains a steep topography and a fall exists at the subject site within the front setback, the topography of the rear setback is RL34.02 to the west and RL33.89 to the east. This represents a fall of 0.13m, or 2%. The fall between the rear boundary to the dwelling is 0.38m, or 2% (RL34.29 and RL33.91 respectively). Accordingly the wall height for sloping sites is not triggered by the development and the 7m wall height limit is required to be complied with.

 

The proposed achieves a maximum wall height of approximately 9.08 metres, a non-compliance of 29.7%. Regardless of the topography, the wall height proposed is excessive and is created by the ‘tower’ like design containing a third storey. The excessive wall height also eventuates in part due to an overly generous floor to ceiling height exceeding 2700mm being provided in the first storey. Reduction in the proposed floor to ceiling height of the second storey from 3200mm to 2400mm deletion of the second level would allow for a wall height of seven (7) metres and lessen the impact of bulk and scale upon the streetscape and adjoining properties. The first storey of the proposed tower primarily contains wrap around stairs, bathroom and wardrobe, these facilities could be provided at ground level and a bedroom created on the first floor instead. The development could also consider a conversion of the attic space within the existing dwelling which can accommodate a floor to ceiling height of 2400mm. It is noted that the applicant seeks to construct skylights into this area as part of the proposed development. Accommodations of such modifications are considered to result in a less visually bulky development and retain views from 8 Bond Street.

 

The applicant has provided that in Broderick v Randwick City Council [2012] (‘Broderick’) the LEC found that reliance on the DCP is questionable. The development within Broderick was for a secondary dwelling above an existing garage triggered by the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The LEC concluded that the former RDCP did not contain any controls which related to the prohibited secondary dwelling, made permissible by way of the ARH SEPP. The utilisation of this appeal is therefore irrelevant for the subject proposal, as numerous controls within the DCP directly relate to the development including wall height, building design, additional building design controls for semi-detached dwellings and view loss.

 

The applicant has also provided that the LEC found the DCP irrelevant in Ballas Medes Constructions Pty Ltd v Randwick City Council [2011] (‘Ballas’). Ballas included a proposal for a residential flat building which both parties agreed did not satisfy the objectives of the LEP and DCP, however was permissible development. Within Ballas, the controls of the DCP were not in contention and the non-compliance with the DCP with regard to side setbacks contributed to the LEC’s dismissal of the appeal. The Ballas judgment is not considered to indicate that the DCP is irrelevant in assessment and does not demonstrate that the proposed development should not be required comply with the RDCP 2013.

 

Building height and wall height seek to mould the building envelope to ensure the scale and mass of development results in reduced amenity impacts to adjoining residents and achieve a suitable environmental planning outcome.  It is clear that the disregard for the wall height by the proposal has resulted in a poor amenity outcome for 8 Bond Street with regard to visual bulk and view loss, and a poor urban design outcome for the pair of semi-detached dwellings. The proposal in its present form is not considered to present a satisfactory outcome with regard to wall height and Clause 3.2 of the DCP.

 

·          Section 4: Built form

The proposed tower development is considered to be inconsistent with the scale of the other two storey dwelling and dual occupancies within the visual catchment of the subject site. The applicants argument that the proposed development is consistent with the scale of three to five storey flat buildings constructed in the 1960’s and 1970’s is not considered to be an appropriate comparison as discussed previously, and clearly indicates the massing and scale proposed is consistent with medium to high residential development as opposed to the low density zoning applicable to the site. The built form is considered to disregard the existing pair of semi-detached dwelling development, discussed further below, responding poorly to the existing site conditions and resulting in an unsatisfactory built form contribution to the streetscape.

 

·          Section 4.2: Additional provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings.

The subject dwelling is part of a pair of symmetrical semi-detached dwellings. The objectives of Part 4.2 require the following.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant has submitted that the proposed addition will be barely visible from the streetscape, as shown in Figures 3 and 4, and retains the existing roof form. The streetscape montages provided by Jon Jacka Architect reflect that the addition will be highly visible from the streetscape. The tower element is a modern addition and is not considered to integrate in any way with the semi-detached dwellings and starkly contrasts with the built form.

 

As discussed above within ‘wall height’, a similar development outcome can be achieved for the site which retains the floor space sought and retains the amenity and views of 8 Bond Street. These changes can be incorporated whilst also carefully integrating with the semi-detached built form, setting a desirable and respectful architectural benchmark of which the adjoining semi-detached would be required to complement.

 

The proposal in its current form would require the attached semi-detached dwelling to provide a tower addition to complement the proposal. A second tower element is considered to likely result in excessive visual bulk to 14 Bond Street, create privacy impacts and further view loss impacts. Further, such tower development is not considered complimentary or compatible with the existing semi-detached built form. 

 

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

 

·          Section 5.6: View Sharing

Objectives

·       To acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements, such as ocean, bays, coastlines, watercourses, bushland and parks; as well as recognised icons, such as city skylines, landmark buildings / structures and special natural features.

 

·       To protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

 

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

 

Controls

i)        The location and design of dwellings and outbuildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

 

ii)               In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas (such as living room, dining room, lounge and kitchen) should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms. 

 

iii)      Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain.

 

iv)      The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

v)       Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

vi)      Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the DA.

 

Concerns were raised during notification with regard to view sharing between 8, 8A and 10 Bond Street. 8 Bond Street and 8A Bond Street were inspected by the assessing officer to inform the below assessment. It is noted that the submissions did not raise concern in relation to 8A Bond Street, however the responses received from the applicant continued to treat the dual occupancy as a single dwelling, which is not correct when assessing view loss.

 

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

 

Principles 1 and 2: Assess views to be affected, and consider from what part of the property views are obtained.

 

8 and 8A Bond Street, Maroubra

 

The following properties were raised in relation to issues of view loss as a result of the proposal:

·      8 Bond Street

·      8A Bond Street

 

The abovementioned properties sit above the level of the subject site, obtaining views above the existing ridge of Maroubra Bay and Malabar Headland.

 

8 and 8A Bond Street are the western neighbour to the subject site, with the layout of the dual occupancy generally comprising a two storey occupancy at the front of the site towards Bond Street (8A Bond Street), and the second occupancy (8 Bond Street) located further towards the rear, primarily along the eastern side of the site.

 

8A Bond Street primarily obtains views front the front balconies and first floor living room. As shown below, these will be substantially unobstructed by the proposed development. Further view loss assessment for 8A Bond Street is not required given the lack of impact to the development by the proposal.

 

Figure 9: View from front balcony of 8A Bond Street. No views will be obstructed by proposal.

Figure 10: View from front balcony towards proposed development. No views will be obstructed by proposal.

Figure 11: View of Maroubra Beach and Malabar Headland from first floor living room of 5A Bond Street. No views will be obstructed by proposal.

 

It is acknowledged by both the objector and applicant that no views will be lost for 8A Bond Street.

 

The specific areas of 8 Bond Street likely to be impacted are discussed below and referenced as follows:

 

·      Rear private open space;

·      Ground floor living/dining areas;

·      First floor balcony;

·      First floor master bedroom.

 

Private open space

The rear private open space is orientated north and accesses views over the eastern side boundary. Located at ground level, however the slope of Bond Street results in 8 Bond Street becoming elevated above the subject site. Southern and eastern views are obtained of the Malabar Headland and ocean views.

 

The views of Malabar Headland are considered iconic views. The view of the Headland is generally obscured by adjoining ridge lines depending on the standing location within the rear yard. Sitting views are not considered to be substantially obtained from this location.

Ground floor living/dining areas

The ground floor living/dining areas are orientated towards the eastern side boundary and obtain views to the east. Substantial landscaping and trees obscure most views of the ocean. Partial views can be obtained from sitting and standing positions.

First floor balcony

The first floor balcony is orientated towards the east and obtains expansive views of the ocean and iconic Malabar Headland from the northern, eastern and southern perspectives. The views obtained are interface views between the headland, ocean and sand are also obtained from both sitting and standing positions.

First floor master bedroom

The rear first floor master bedroom obtains expansive iconic views of the Malabar Headland and ocean. Interface views between the Headland, sand and ocean are unobstructed. These views are obtained over the side boundary above the eastern ridge lines.

 

Principle 3: Assess the extent of the impact.

Note: Where possible, the images utilised have been provided by the applicant’s architect, Jon Jacka Architect, in response to the view loss objection from 8 Bond Street. Unless otherwise stated, the pictures provided are considered generally accurate in accordance with Council’s height poles.

 

Private Open Space

Some minor view loss is expected to occur to the private open space as a result of the proposed development.

 

Figure 12: Views currently obtained from rear open space (J Jacka Architect).

Figure 13: Impact on views from proposed development (J Jacka Architect)

 

Some partial views of the Malabar Headland are lost as part of the proposed development. Notwithstanding, given the location of the open space located at ground and glimpses of the Headland currently achieved, view loss in this location over the side boundary is considered a reasonable expectation with any first floor addition. The impacts to the views obtained by the rear private open space are considered unavoidable.

 

 

Ground floor living/dining areas

Some minor view loss is expected to occur to the ground floor living area as a result of the proposed development.

 

The ground floor living/dining room directly faces east, towards the side boundary. It is recognised within the principle that side boundary views are difficult to retain. The proposal will generally reduce ocean views that are currently obscured by the boundary trees.  With consideration of the proposal, the ground floor location of this living room and ocean views obtained from over the side boundary, it is considered difficult to retain this view with any reasonable first floor addition.

 

Please note that a view analysis provided by the applicant was deficient with regard to a full assessment of affected views. Council’s height poles reflect an estimate as to the views lost from the ground living room.

 

Figure 14: View obtained from living/dining room. Arrows indicated proposed building envelope and direction of building envelope not depicted within the view.

 

First floor balcony

Severe view loss is expected to occur to the rear/northern point of the balcony, however minor view loss is expected to occur to the top/southern point of the balcony as a result of the proposed development.

 

·      Southern Aspect of the balcony

 

Figure 15: Views currently obtained the southern aspect of the balcony.

Figure 16: Impact on views from proposed development (J Jacka Architect)

 

The southern aspect of the balcony substantially retains iconic views of the Headlands, ocean views and interface views as a result of the proposed development. It is considered that a reduction in height may achieve some additional ocean views to the north, however the views diminished from this aspect of the balcony are not considered unreasonable.

 

·      Northern Aspect of the balcony

 

Please note that a view analysis provided by the applicant was deficient with regard to a full assessment of affected views. Council’s height poles reflect an estimate as to the views lost from the northern aspect of the balcony.

 

Figure 17: View obtained from northern aspect of the balcony, viewing south. Arrows indicated approximate proposed building envelope and direction of building envelope. The view loss depicted is considered severe.

 

Roughly 50-60% of the horizon, ocean and iconic Malabar Headland views are obstructed by the proposed development. Whilst some vegetation partially obstructs the Malabar Headland views, vegetation can be landscaped to reclaim the view. Views of the land/sea interface and iconic Malabar Headland are considered to be adversely affected as a direct result of the non-compliance with the RDCP 2013 wall height control. It is recognised that although the view is partially obtained over the side boundary, a more skilful design can achieve retention of the view.

 

First floor Master bedroom

Severe view loss is expected to occur to this window as a result of the proposed development.

 

Figure 18: Views currently obtained from rear open space (J Jacka Architect).

Figure 19: Impact on views from proposed development (J Jacka Architect).

 

As shown above, the master bedroom is severely affected by the proposed development, resulting in total view loss of iconic Malabar Headland. Some ocean views are retained.

 

Whilst the view is obtained across a side boundary and generally harder to retain, the sloping topography of Bond Street should allow for retention of the view. It is considered that the excessive height of the proposed building results in an unreasonable impact on the view from this window. The reduction in height and deletion of the upper storey of the proposal will generally retain the current view lines from the subject window.

 

Principle 4: Assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact

The views to the Malabar Headland amd Maroubra Bay are obtained over the eastern side boundary shared between 8 and 10 Bond Street. The proposed three storey addition at 10 Bond Stret would see a severe loss of views from the first floor balcony and master bedroom, and some view loss from the ground floor living rooms and private open space.

 

It is considered that amendments to the proposal could be made to provide a significant improvement in the view impact caused by 10 Bond Street and would also address the excessive height and visual bulk of the proposed building.

 

As shown, the application has submitted a view anaylsis study to demonstrate the extent of view loss from 8 and 8A Bond Street. Whilst the study generally contains a comprehensive level of detail, with the exception of the two views not addressed, the view loss created by the proposal is still considered unsatisfactory as the impact on views arises as a result of variations to Council’s numerical controls.

 

It is considered that a more skillful design in conjunction with addressing issues of height, bulk and scale would provide for a more suitable form of development on the site.

 

6.       Randwick Section 94A Development Contributions Plan

 

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

 

Category

Cost

Applicable Levy

S94A Levy

Development cost more than $200,000

$413,875

1.0%

$4,138.75

 

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 numerous concerns with regards to the objectives and controls within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Randwick Development Controls Plan 2013.

 

The application is not accompanied by an objection under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP to justify variation of the 9.5m height limit. The proposal in its current form is considered to pose a number of avoidable impacts to the streetscape and the adjoining dual occupancy with regard to view loss and visual bulk.

 

It is considered that the proposed development cannot be modified within the current application to achieve the objectives of the relevant planning controls. Correspondence received from the applicant has indicated an unwillingness to consider modifications and an inclination that the current proposal is currently a compromise. It is considered that the extent of conditions that would be necessary to mitigate the substantial issues is unachievable.

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal, based on the reasons identified below.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent to Development Application No. 20/2015 for alterations and construction of a three storey addition to the rear of the existing semi-detached dwelling, at No. 10 Bond Street, Maroubra, pursuant to Section 80(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, for the following reasons:

 

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

 

2.     The proposed development is not consistent with the relevant objectives of floor space ratio under Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, in that the proposal results in a building envelope with adversely impacts on the adjoining development through excessive visual bulk and view loss;

 

3.     The proposal exceeds the maximum height standard of 9.5 metres specified in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The applicant has not provided a valid request for exception pursuant to Clause 4.6, demonstrating the application of the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances;

 

4.     The scheme proposes an excessive wall height that eventuates in unreasonable bulk and scale and fails meet the objectives for Building Height set out in Clause 3.2 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

5.     The scheme proposes a built form that does not adequately respond to its topographical and built form context and fails to meet the objectives and controls of Building Design set out in Clause 4.1 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

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

 

7.     The scheme does not meet the view sharing requirements set out in Clause 5.6 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C1 – Low Density Residential;

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 10 Bond Street, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D35/15

 

Subject:                  48 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA/931/2014)

Folder No:               DA/931/2014

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner      

 

 

Proposal:                        Demolition of the existing dwelling house and garage and construction of a new part 2 part 3 storey dwelling house with basement cellar/storage and new boundary fence.

 

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Jules Trina Sebastian

Owner:                    Guy & Jules Sebastian

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview64635.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed works are valued over $2 million.

Proposal

 

The application is seeking consent for demolition of the existing dwelling house and garage and construction of a new part 2 part 3 storey dwelling house with basement cellar/storage and new boundary fence.  The exisitng outbuilding to the rear will be renovated to contain a WC and basin and changing area.  The pool pump equipment will be upgraded and placed under the outbuilding with access from the rear.

 

The proposed dwelling will contain:

 

Basement:            Cellar and storage

 

Ground floor:        Double garage, 2 bedrooms, bathroom, ensuite, laundry, study, kitchen and living, dining and kitchen areas

 

First floor level:     Gymnasium, 2 bedrooms, wardrobe, store, 2 bathrooms and media/theatre room

 

Second floor level: Master bedroom and enuite.

 

Amended plans have been received by Council on 12 March 2015 which provides two additional windows on the first floor level to the front façade of the building. The window to the centre W/33 on the first floor level has been slightly shifted.

 

Site

 

The site is made up of two lots described as lots 1 & 2 of DP 324581, known as 48 Torrington Road. The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.  The site is restricted to 9.5 metres in height and 0.50:1 in floor space. 

 

The subject site is located on the north eastern side of Torrington Road between Inman and Wilson Streets. The site is ‘L’ shaped with a frontage width of 12.8m and total site area of 1339.67m².  The topography of the site falls gently in two directions from the street to the rear boundary of approximately 1.3m and from the north western side boundary to the south eastern side boundary of approximately 1.02m.

 

The site is currently occupied by an existing two storey dwelling house with a detached double garage to the front of the property, and a tennis court, a swimming pool and outbuilding to the rear of the property.

 

The site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area and the locality is predominantly occupied by a mixture of single, 2 and 3 storey semi-detached and detached dwelling housings, attached dual occupancy developments.  Immediately to the north-west of the subject site at no. 46 Torrington Road is a new part two part three storey dwelling house and swimming pool which is current under construction and to the south-east of the subject site at no. 50 Torrington Road is a single storey semi-detached dwelling house. Refer to figure 1 below.

 

 

Figure 1: Existing streetscape view

 

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:

 

·      43 Torrington Road, Maroubra 

·      45 Torrington Road, Maroubra 

 

Issue

Comment

Streetscape appearance

The design aesthetic of the building appears to give the impression of a commercial or industrial estate. This is accentuated by the proposed height of up to 9.5m.  The proposed development does not fit within the residential character of the streetscape and believes will not have a positive contribution to the street as stated in the SEE.

 

Amended plans have been received providing two additional windows to the front of the façade which improves the presentation of the building from the streetscape.  The design incorporates architectural elements, adequate articulation and modulation to the sides and front façades of the dwellings which enhances the visual interest to the street frontages, along with appropriate colour and material variation.

 

The height of the development complies with the maximum building height standard in the LEP 2012 and also satisfies the objectives of the external wall height control in the DCP 2013. The proposed development is consistent with the desired future character of the locality as defined by the controls relating to FSR, height, setback and built form. The scale and mass of the proposed development is also consistent in scale and built form with other development in the streetscape.

Noise

Does not object to the media/home theatre provided the necessary sound proofing is installed.

 

Standard noise conditions are included which requires  the operation of all plant and equipment upon the premises not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RCDCP 2013)

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

 

Part C1: Low Density Residential

 

1.1     Building Height - Section 3.2

 

Objectives

·        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.

 

Controls

i)    The maximum external wall height is 7m. For steeply sloping sites, the maximum external wall height is 8m.

 

The minimum floor-to-ceiling height for living areas, such as living room / lounge and dining room, is 2700mm.

 

ii)   An alternative design that varies the above external wall height controls may be acceptable having regard to the following consideration:

 

·      Site topography

·      Site orientation

·      Allotment configuration

·      Allotment dimensions

·      Potential impacts on the visual amenity, solar access, privacy and views of the adjoining properties

 

The DCP identifies seven (7) metres in wall height may be achieved on sites with minimal change in topography.  The application proposes an external wall height of approximately 9.5 metres to the side elevations of the proposed dwelling.

 

While numerically the wall height figure is in excess of the DCP control, the objectives of the wall height control are satisfied by the scheme, which incorporates substantial setbacks to each side of the dwelling.  In particular, the non-compliant wall height sections are centralised. This approach ensures the visual bulk of the building is limited, employing considered use of articulating and modulating elements, along with appropriate colour and material variation.

 

The scale of the building reflects the size of the existing dwelling on this site, along with those in the general vicinity and the Torrington Road streetscape, particularly the neighbouring property at no. 46 Torrington Road which was recently approved with a similar wall height. Refer to figures 1 above & 2 below.  The proposed wall height is not considered to eventuate in any unreasonable impacts of bulk and scale, privacy, shadow or view loss to surrounding sites, as discussed in the following sections of this report and compliance report.

 

The extent of wall height achieved is not the result of a building of excessive size in the context of development in this area. The variation is considered acceptable with regard to the objectives of Section 3.2.

 

Figure 2: The applicant’s streetscape perspective of the proposal from Torrington Road.

 

Sub-section 4.6 – Earthworks

 

Objectives

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

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

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

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The front area below the garage is excavated by a maximum of approximately 3.7m to allow for a basement cellar/storage area.  The proposed excavation works are considered to be acceptable as the works are setback greater than 900mm from the side boundaries, do not result in unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing and privacy impacts on the adjoining dwellings and is maintaining the existing natural ground level as viewed from the front of the façade which eliminates its visible from the streetscape. 

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

South-western front elevation

It is not expected that the window and door openings to the south western elevation will result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. The openings to the front elevation will predominately overlook the front yards of the subject and adjoining properties and streetscape.

 

 

North-western side elevation

The adjoining site to the north-west is currently under construction for a part 2 part 3 storey dwelling house.  A number of window openings are proposed towards the subject site and the open space is oriented to the north-east.

 

Windows proposed on the opposing elevation of 48 Torrington Road are limited to five (5) window openings with four of the windows corresponding to low use rooms being to a bathroom (W/19 & W/20), wardrobe (W/18) and store room (W/17) and are off set from adjoining window openings such that they do not cause significant privacy concerns.

 

The remain window W/21 is to a gymnasium room, this window is considered to result in privacy concerns to the rear yard of the neighbouring dwelling at no. 46 Torrington Road.  For this reason it is recommended that the sill height to this window be increased to 1.6m from the finished floor level or alternatively this window is to be fixed and of obscure glazing. 

 

South-eastern side elevation

The adjoining site to the south-east is a single storey semi-detached dwelling with a number of openings oriented toward the subject site and open space oriented to the north-east. It is not expected that the window openings to this side of the dwelling will result in unreasonable privacy impacts to the neighbouring property at no. 50 Torrington Road. 

 

The proposed window openings along the south-eastern elevation are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       The ground floor window and door openings will be screened by the dividing fence and internal court yard area. 

 

·       The following window openings on the first and second floor levels are to low use rooms and overlook the roof area of the neighbouring semi-detached dwellings, i.e. bedrooms W/29, W/30, W/30A, W/32, 32A & W/33 and bathrooms W/31;

 

·       Windows W/11, W/12 & W/28 are located within void areas; and

 

·       On the second floor level the dwelling is setback 7.4m from the side boundary and the window openings W/37 & W/38 will be obscured by the roof area of the first floor level on the subject site.

 

The proposal is considered to provide a satisfactory outcome with respect to adjoining privacy, subject to the recommended condition above. 

 

North-eastern rear elevation

It is not expected that the window and door openings to the north-east elevation will result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. These openings will predominately overlook the internal courtyard and rear yard of the subject.

 

Sub-section 5.6 - View sharing

 

Objectives

·        To acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements, such as ocean, bays, coastlines, watercourses, bushland and parks; as well as recognised icons, such as city skylines, landmark buildings / structures and special natural features.

·        To protect and enhance views from the public domain, including streets, parks and reserves.

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

 

Controls

i)       The location and design of dwellings and outbuildings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from the neighbouring dwellings, streets and public open space areas.

 

ii)      In assessing potential view loss impacts on the neighbouring dwellings, retaining existing views from the living areas (such as living room, dining room, lounge and kitchen) should be given a priority over those obtained from the bedrooms and non-habitable rooms. 

 

iii)     Where a design causes conflicts between retaining views for the public domain and private properties, priority must be given to view retention for the public domain.

 

iv)     The design of fences and selection of plant species must minimise obstruction of views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

v)      Adopt a balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing, and avoid the creation of long and massive blade walls or screens that obstruct views from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

vi)     Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted to mitigate potential view loss impacts in the DA.

 

The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area and from elevated positions, obtains views above adjoining development to the north, through to the east identified as directions ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ in the figure 3 below.

 

Figure 3: Site analysis plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

Sites adjoining the subject site to the north-west and across Torrington Road to the south-west, obtain views in some instances above the subject site. The views are mainly obtained at the upper most levels of the dwellings.

 

No view loss issues were raised during notification and therefore, no specific cases were investigated. However, the applicant has provided the potential view loss impacts from the north-west facing property at no. 37 Torrington Road which is located 4 properties in a westerly direction opposite the road from the subject site.

 

Two outlines have been shown in figure 4; the first outline is the approved dwelling at no. 46 Torrington Road which is currently under construction shown in highlighted green and the second outline is the proposed dwelling at no. 48 Torrington Road shown in pink.  The photo in figure 4 has been taken from the first floor balcony which is located off a living area from the property at no. 37 Torrington Road. This photo provided by the applicant demonstrates that the view loss impacts resulting from this development are minor to moderate and the views will largely be affected by the neighbouring dwelling at no. 46 Torrington Road.  

 

View loss from no. 35 Torrington Road would be less than depicted in figure 4 below as it is higher up the hill.  Neighbouring properties that are further down the hill from no. 37 Torrington Road, no.’s 39, 41, 43 & 45 Torrington Road as shown in figure 3 dashed in yellow will also result in moderate view loss.  The views are mostly obtained from the upper most levels, the property at no. 39 Torrington Road is a single storey dwelling.  The anticipated view loss impacts from the remaining properties (no.’s 41, 43 & 45) will be similar to that shown in view 4 below. The photo demonstrates that some views in a northerly and north easterly direction above the roof top across the subject and neighbouring sites can still be obtained.  Further, the development allows for viewing corridors by providing generous side setbacks to the second floor level, 5.538m and 7.4m.

 

It is therefore expected that existing views in direction ‘C’ & ‘B’ in the figure 4 above, obtained above the subject site, will largely remain from those sites opposite.

 

In relation to the views in direction ‘A’ the subject site is within the front building setback approved for no. 46 Torrington Road.  The views will remain as considered and approved under DA/77/2013.  In relation to the anticipated view loss from no. 46 Torrington Road the views across the south eastern side elevation to the proposed second floor level will be initially lost.  This is not unreasonable given that the windows to these rooms are to an ensuite and bedroom and views across the side boundaries will be more difficult to retain.

 

Figure 4: View taken from the first floor balcony off the living room at no. 37 Torrington Road.

 

As demonstrated in the above assessment, the anticipated view loss to the neighbouring properties is not considered significant given the overall degree of impact. The affected properties along Torrington Road will retain a significant portion of the views to the north east. 

 

The development complies with the maximum building height and FSR standards in the LEP 2012. As discussed in the relevant section of this report the variation to the external wall height control in the DCP 2013 is considered to comply with the objectives of the control as the height, bulk and scale of the development is compatible with other dwelling houses in the streetscape and is an appropriate design that relates to the typography and its context.  Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design.

 

The development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties.  Accordingly, the resultant view loss impact is justified.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is located within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposed development is considered to compatible with the height, bulk and scale of other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood. Relevant controls and objectives within Randwick DCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts have been assessed as being acceptable, subject to proposed conditions of consent. The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality within the foreshore area.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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/931/2014 for demolition of the existing dwelling house and garage and construction of a new part 2 part 3 storey dwelling house with basement cellar/storage and new boundary fence, at No. 48 Torrington Road, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The window to the gymnasium room W/21 to the north western elevation on the first floor level must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 48 Torrington Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D36/15

 

Subject:                  9 Figtree Avenue, Randwick (DA/861/2014)

Folder No:               DA/861/2014

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

 

Proposal:                 Substantial alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling with carport.

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Raso Rocco

Owner:                    Sharon-Anne Doyle

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Matson, Neilson, Bowen and Shurey.

1.       Proposal

 

The application proposes alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new first floor addition and new carport within the front setback.

 

The details of the proposed works are as follows:

 

-       Demolition of the rear of the dwelling;

-       Construction of a new ground floor comprising a kitchen, dining, laundry and living room. The ground floor will also extend towards the southern boundary and maintain a 900mm setback;

-       Minor modifications to the two front bedrooms;

-       Construction of a new first floor addition to the existing dwelling providing two bedrooms, bathroom and ensuite;

-       Modifications to the front fence to a height of 1.2m with posts to a height of 1.5m; and

-       Construction of a garage within the front setback along the southern boundary.

 

Amended plans were received 5 March 2015 with the following amendments:

 

-       Reduction in building height by 1.9m;

-       Modified roof form from a gabled roof to a flat roof; and

-       Deletion of the proposed garage and replacement with a carport in the same location.

 

2.       Subject Site and Surrounding Area:

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Figtree Avenue. The site is occupied by an existing semi-detached dwelling. The subject dwelling is one of a pair (attached to 7 Figtree Avenue) and grouping of semi-detached dwellings. The site has a single frontage to Figtree Avenue and the parcel is generally rectangular in shape, with a slight diagonal rear, which is consistent with the subdivision pattern for Figtree Avenue. The topography of the site falls towards the street, with an overall fall of 1.9m.

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Western, Figtree Avenue boundary

7.7m

225m2

Northern, side boundary (party wall)

28.5m

Southern, side boundary

29.4m

Eastern, rear boundary

8.1m

 

The locality is residential in nature and characterised by a mix of semi-detached dwellings, free standing dwellings and three to four storey residential flat buildings adjacent to the site, to the north of the site and along Pine Street, which faces towards Figtree Avenue.

 

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

Image 1: Subject Site located on the right side of the image.

Images 2, 3, 4 and 5: First floor additions located within Figtree Avenue.

 

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:

·      11 Figtree Avenue

Objection 1

 

Issue

Comment

Symmetry of dwellings.

Refer to discussion under section 4.2.

Inappropriate colours and finishes.

A condition of consent has been recommended to require a complimentary colour scheme be utilised.

Overshadowing –

-   Impact on ‘planned’ solar panels.

-   Eaves not shown on shadows.

-   Summer solstice and autumn/spring equinox not provided.

-   Inaccurate information shown

Refer to discussion under section 5.1.

However it is noted that the required winter solstice period was provided with the application and an elevational shadow plan was accompanied with the amended plans. The shadow plans have been verified by Council Officers and are accurate.

Acoustic privacy

-    Air-conditioner unit

Refer to discussion under section 5.4.

The air-conditioner unit is not located next to any bedrooms at the objector’s property. Notwithstanding, a specific condition has been recommended that the air conditioning equipment shall not be operated during specific hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises.

Impact on rear adjoining tree.

Addressed by Council’s Landscape Officer and appropriate conditions of consent have been included regarding the tree.

Stormwater impacts from garage.

Stormwater details are not required at the DA stage and a suitable condition is included for the construction certificate. It is noted that the garage has been deleted.

Accuracy of information submitted.

The plans submitted to Council have been verified and notwithstanding numerical errors within the Statement of Environmental Effects, the application provides sufficient information to allow for a proper assessment.

Privacy

Suitable conditions of consent have been included to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

Proposal seeks to only maximise the numerical controls.

Refer to discussion under Clause 4.4 and section’s 4, 4.2 and 5.1.

New work v alterations and additions and should be considered as ‘new work’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposed development is a form of facadism.

The Land and Environment Court has revised the planning principle in relation to alterations and additions; instead requiring a qualitative assessment of an application as undertaken in Coorey v Municipality of Hunters Hill [2013]. The application is consistent with the planning principle and is within the anticipated building envelope for such a development.

 

The subject site is not a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area. As the proposal does not seek to vary Council’s controls based on the existing footprint and does not seek to retain the dwelling façade to attempt to placate heritage concerns, the issue of ‘facadism’ is considered to be irrelevant to this proposal.

Bulk of development

Refer to discussion under Section 4.

 

Floor Space Ratio inaccurate and exceeds FSR. Garage has been omitted from FSR calculations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inaccurate FSR against the NSW Housing Code.

The proposed floor space ratio has been calculated as part of the assessment process. It is noted that the subject site is less than 300 sqm and a numerical standard is not provided for under the RLEP 2012 and instead requires a merit assessment as per Clause 4.4(2B).

 

The garage has been deleted.

 

The application is not for a ‘complying development’ or secondary dwelling and therefore the NSW Housing Code does not apply.

Side setbacks for the subject site do not have a numerical side setback and are therefore merit assessed. The proposal has not been designed to mitigate amenity impacts. 1 metre setback inadequate.

A minimum side setback of 900mm applies to the site due to the frontage width of 7.685m, as per the RDCP 2013.

 

Visual privacy.

Refer to discussion within the executive summary report.

Request to reduce the height of the addition by up to 1.4m.

The proposed development has been amended to include a 1.9m reduction in overall height.

Garage disrupts harmony of semi-detached dwellings.

The garage has been deleted.

 

Note: Within the original submission several design ideas were proposed by the objector to reduce the height of the dwelling. The objector submitted that a reduced height of RL62.37 would be a satisfactory outcome. The amended proposal has reduced the height to RL61.87, exceeding the objector’s request.

 

Objection 2

 

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing and solar access.

Refer to discussion under section 5.1.

Acoustic privacy and room configuration.

Refer to compliance report.

Applicant has not reduced the physical height of development.

The development as amended has been reduced by 1.9m in height and is the same height as the approved development at 7 Figtree Avenue.

Visual privacy.

Refer to discussion within the executive summary report.

 

Objection 3

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing to living room, dining area and kitchen/family area.

Refer to discussion under section 5.1.

 

 

4.       Key Issues

 

·          Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio

The proposal will result in a floor space ratio of 0.76:1. The semi-detached dwelling will not result in any significant visual impacts and will remain compatible with the appearance of the existing streetscape (as shown above in Images 2-5). The proposed development is located adjacent to several two and three storey residential flat buildings and numerous other semi-detached dwellings within the street have constructed first floor additions; of which the proposed development is compatible with in terms of bulk and scale. The approval granted for the paired semi-detached dwelling at 7 Figtree Avenue resulted in an FSR of 0.79:1. Further, the proposal will maintain the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings and will not result in a loss of privacy and the overshadowing impacts are considered unavoidable due to the orientation of the allotments (discussed further below in Section 5.1). Accordingly, the proposed FSR represents a development which is in keeping with the character of the locality, consistent with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and is considered to demonstrate compliance with the objectives of Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012.

 

·          Section 3.3.3: Rear Setbacks

The proposed development seeks to modify the rear setback control by 1.3m. The objectives of the setback controls are to maintain established building rhythms and ensure that adequate separation of development is achieved. The rear setback sought by the subject proposal is 6m, in excess of the rear setback of both the northern and southern adjoining sites which contain a rear setback of 4.8m (as approved at 7 Figtree in 2012). The proposed setback at 6m is therefore consistent with the established pattern of development and still maintains the required landscaping, deep soil and private open space requirements of the RDCP 2013. The rear setback variation is considered acceptable.  

 

·          Section 4: Built form

Council is required to consider additional design provisions for semi-detached developments in addition to the building design controls with the RDCP 2013. Section 4 of the DCP requires that the bulk of any first floor addition should be setback from the principle street frontage and be accommodated to the rear of the dwelling, with a substantial portion of the existing front roof remaining intact. The proposed additions are located behind the main ridge line and demonstrate compliance with this control. The controls also require that development not contribute excessive bulk and scale as a result of poor design. The proposed development is substantially located towards the rear of the site and behind the main ridge line. Accordingly, the bulk presented to the street is generally provided at the rear of the site and is not out of scale with surrounding development.

 

The objectives of the DCP also specify that any redevelopment or alteration and addition must recognise it as being half of a pair of symmetrical or complementary buildings and is designed in a manner that respects the architectural expression of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. The new additions, as amended, includes the construction of a flat roof form consistent with the design approved in 2012 on the other half of the semi-detached dwelling at 7 Figtree Avenue. The additions have also been reduced in height by 1.9m to match the approved height at 7 Figtree Avenue and both semi’s retain the character of the existing built form. The modified roof form will contribute to a consistent design to the appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings and will maintain the character of the streetscape along Figtree Avenue.

 

·          Section 4.2: Additional provisions for symmetrical semi-detached dwellings

Several examples of first floor additions exist within Figtree Avenue, with both flat roofed and gabled roof additions present within the streetscape. The original proposed development did not comply with the controls in that the proposal had not demonstrated any regard to the existing approval at 7 Figtree Avenue. The proposed development, as amended, is setback behind the main ridgeline and preserves a substantial of the roof as viewed from the street. The bulk of the development is located to the rear and consequently will not create excessive bulk and retain a reasonable scale in relation to the existing semi-detached dwellings.

 

Whilst the approved development at 7 Figtree is further setback behind the main ridge line, the flat roofed design of the subject application will retain a cohesive design and will not detract from the pair when viewed from the street. As both roof forms are minimal, the existing built form of the semi-detached dwellings will feature prominently within the streetscape whilst both additions will remain secondary. Accordingly, the proposed modifications will result in a generally symmetrical pair of dwellings as required under the RDCP 2013.  

 

·          Section 5.1: Amenity, Solar access and overshadowing

The proposed development will contribute to additional overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring dwelling at 11 Figtree Avenue. Council’s controls specify a minimum of 3 hours of direct solar access to the private open space and a portion of the north facing living room windows of the adjoining premises is to be maintained. Notwithstanding, the RDCP specifies that under some circumstances a departure from the abovementioned controls is acceptable and will be subject to a merit assessment with regard to the following:

 

·      Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls

·      Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision of the urban block.

·      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

·      Location and level of the windows in question.

·      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

Guidance to the assessment of overshadowing is provided in the planning principle created within The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010]. The following questions are utilised to guide the assessment:

 

1.     The ease with which sunlight access can be protected is inversely proportional to the density of development. At low densities, there is a reasonable expectation that a dwelling and some of its open space will retain its existing sunlight. (However, even at low densities there are sites and buildings that are highly vulnerable to being overshadowed.) At higher densities sunlight is harder to protect and the claim to retain it is not as strong.

2.     The amount of sunlight lost should be taken into account, as well as the amount of sunlight retained.

3.     Overshadowing arising out of poor design is not acceptable, even if it satisfies numerical guidelines. The poor quality of a proposal’s design may be demonstrated by a more sensitive design that achieves the same amenity without substantial additional cost, while reducing the impact on neighbours.

4.     For a window, door or glass wall to be assessed as being in sunlight, regard should be had not only to the proportion of the glazed area in sunlight but also to the size of the glazed area itself. Strict mathematical formulae are not always an appropriate measure of solar amenity. For larger glazed areas, adequate solar amenity in the built space behind may be achieved by the sun falling on comparatively modest portions of the glazed area.

5.     For private open space to be assessed as receiving adequate sunlight, regard should be had of the size of the open space and the amount of it receiving sunlight. Self-evidently, the smaller the open space, the greater the proportion of it requiring sunlight for it to have adequate solar amenity. A useable strip adjoining the living area in sunlight usually provides better solar amenity, depending on the size of the space. The amount of sunlight on private open space should ordinarily be measured at ground level but regard should be had to the size of the space as, in a smaller private open space, sunlight falling on seated residents may be adequate.

6.     Overshadowing by fences, roof overhangs and changes in level should be taken into consideration. Overshadowing by vegetation should be ignored, except that vegetation may be taken into account in a qualitative way, in particular dense hedges that appear like a solid fence.

7.     In areas undergoing change, the impact on what is likely to be built on adjoining sites should be considered as well as the existing development.

 

Assessment:

The additional overshadowing created by the proposed development will primarily fall on 11 Figtree Avenue, however, the shadowing impacts are largely due to the orientation of the subdivision allotment patterns which are east/west facing. As a result, the objector’s site is highly vulnerable to being overshadowed given the orientation of the site and location of an existing four storey residential flat building to the north of the site.

 

The subject proposal is not considered excessive in bulk and scale complies and complies with the relevant controls which relate to overshadowing including side setbacks, wall height, site coverage, floor space ratio and building height. The non-compliance of the rear setback control will not significantly improve the solar access to the southern neighbour. The objector initially requested a reduction in height by 1.4m to RL62.37. The applicant has reduced the height by 1.9m to RL61.87, above what was requested by the objector. Notwithstanding, the reduction in height as requested has not resulted in any significant increase to solar access to 11 Figtree Avenue. Accordingly, the loss of direct sunlight and overshadowing created does not arise as a result of varying the development controls.

 

The additional shadowing impact from the proposed development does not allow for retention of three hours of direct sunlight to the rear living areas of 11 Figtree Avenue. As discussed previously, this is considered unavoidable given the east/west orientation, whereby each site within the street will continue to overshadow the directly adjoining southern neighbour. As such, the overshadowing impacts are not considered to be a result of a poorly designed development or a non-complying development.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the non-compliance with the solar access requirements of the DCP is not a result of a poor design. The reduction in solar access to 11 Figtree Avenue is a direct result of the orientation of the site and is difficult to retain given its vulnerable position. Some direct solar access is retained and in the event that 11 Figtree Avenue seeks to add a new first floor level, the addition will not have solar access constrained as a result of the development. A merit assessment of the shadows cast by the proposed development demonstrates that the proposal’s inability to meet the numerical requirements does not result from a non-compliance with the controls or poor design, but instead from the orientation of the site and subsequent subdivision pattern. It is considered that the RDCP objectives have been met with regard to overshadowing in that the subject site has designed the additions to minimise the shadowing impact of the development and thereby provided reasonable levels of solar access to both dwellings and their respective private open spaces. Further, the guidelines established within the solar access planning principle are considered to be satisfied in that the proposal is a reasonable and anticipated form of development which complies with the relevant building envelope controls that inform solar access including floor space ratio, side setbacks, wall height, site coverage and building height.

 

·          Section B7: Parking Requirements

The parking requirement for a dwelling house with 3 or more bedrooms is two off-street parking spaces, whereas the proposed three bedroom semi-detached dwelling will provide one off-street parking spaces.

 

The non-compliance has been assessed against the relevant objectives and planning controls of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan and is supported given that the proposal will not generate an unreasonably high demand for additional parking in the locality. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal is not required to provide additional off-street parking given that there is convenient access to public transport in close proximity to the site; that there is on-street parking in the vicinity of the site and on nearby side streets. It is also noted that site constraints are such that additional off-street parking cannot be provided within the front setbacks of the subject sites.

 

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 development application proposes substantial alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new first floor addition and new carport within the front setback.

 

The proposed development received one objection, primarily concerned with overshadowing and visual bulk. The proposal has been amended by reducing the overall height by 1.9m, replacing the proposed garage with a carport and modifying the roof form from a gabled roof to a flat roof; also reflecting a recent approval to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling which incorporated a flat roof and front carport.

 

The subject proposal complies with the relevant development standards and development controls which relate to overshadowing including floor space ratio, side setbacks, wall height, site coverage and overall height of the dwelling. Accordingly, the loss of direct sunlight does not arise as a result of varying the development controls.

 

For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal, in balance, is satisfactory from a planning perspective. The recommendation is for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 861/2014 for substantial alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling and new carport at No. 9 Figtree 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

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The following window/s must have a minimum sill height of 1.6 m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·      Ground floor window located on the southern elevation attached to  Bedroom 4;

·      First floor window located on the eastern elevation attached to Bedroom 2.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 9 Figtree Avenue, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D37/15

 

 

Subject:                  165 Prince Edward Street, Malabar (DA/727/2014/A)

Folder No:               DA/727/2014/A

Author:                    Jason  Azzi, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 application to delete Condition 2 (a) of the consent in relation to the height of the carport and modification to the carport design. Original consent: Extend existing garage, new carport to north western side and rear glazed wind break to front façade

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Frank Takos & Associates

Owner:                    Mr K Constantine and Mrs S Constantine

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 determination at the request of Councillors Stavrinos, Andrews, D’Souza and Belleli.

Proposal

 

The subject Section 96 (2) application seeks to delete condition 2 (a) of the consent in relation to the height of the carport proposed carport. Condition 2 (a) reads as follows:

 

Condition 2(a):

The carport structure shall have a maximum height of 2.6m, measured from existing ground level.

 

Subject Site

 

The site is located on the north-eastern side of Prince Edward Street and is known as 165 Prince Edward Street, Malabar. The site is fairly regular in shape with a frontage of 16.15m and both sides boundaries approximately 30.49m. The site has an area of 492.58 and is presently occupied by a two storey brick veneer residence with a timber framed terra cotta tied gabled and hipped roof with a lean-to garage to the side on the southwest boundary.

 

The surrounding area is mostly residential in character and consists predominantly of new two storey developments and re-bricked or cement rendered single storey developments while situated behind the subject site is Randwick Golf Course.

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of approximate location of carport (In red)

 

Figure 2: Subject site

 

Figure 3: Proposed carport structure

 

Submissions

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

 

Section 96 assessment:

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

 

          Substantially the Same Development:

In accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended), the proposed modification will result in a development that is substantially the same as the originally approved development.

 

Key Issues

 

        Carport

The proposal involves increasing the height of the carport structure to 3.93m. The proposed carport structure involves a flat roof to the front portion and a mono-skillion roof to the rear portion. It is noted the original application (DA/727/2014) included amended plans with the same carport structure and carport height as the section 96 application however a condition of consent was included for the carport structure to have a maximum height of 2.6m measured from the existing ground level. Figure 4 below illustrates the proposed carport structure with the maximum height of 3.93m of the carport occurring to the rear while figure 5 illustrates the carport structure as per condition 2(a) of the original consent resulting in a flat roofed carport.

 

 

Figure 4: proposed carport structure

 

Figure 5: proposed carport structure as per condition 2(a).

 

While it is acknowledged the carport structure has been designed to match the slope of the tiled roof of the existing dwelling, the proposed carport height of 3.93m remains well over the 2.6m numerical control in the RDCP 2013 and will result in adverse visual bulk on the adjoining property given it is sited on the boundary. The application therefore does not comply with the objectives and controls of carports under the RDCP 2013 in that the proposed height is well over the numerical control and will have an excessive scale in relation to the adjoining properties.

 

Given this, the deletion of condition 2 (a) from the development consent cannot be supported.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The deletion of condition 2 (a) will result in a development that is inconsistent with the objectives and relevant assessment criteria outlined in the RLEP 2012. It is considered that the proposed carport height will result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the streetscape, the adjoining premises and the character of the locality and that the proposal is unsuitable for the subject site. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/727/2014 by modifying the approved development by deleting condition 2(a) of the development consent in relation to the height of the proposed carport at 165 Prince Edward Street, Malabar, for the following reasons: 

 

1.     The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls of Section 6.6 Carport Configuration under the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 in that the proposed carport structure contains a flat to mono-skillion roof with a maximum building height greater than 3m and will detract from the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

2.     The proposal will lead to a negative planning outcome and would create and undesirable precedent which compromises the amenity of the neighbouring residential dwelling.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 165 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 May 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D38/15

 

 

Subject:                  32-34 Beach Street, Coogee (DA/27/2015)

Folder No:               DA/27/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a multi dwelling housing development containing 6x3 bedroom dwellings and basement car parking for 11 vehicles

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr P Sweeney

Owner:                    Mr P A Sweeney and Mrs S M Sweeney

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview65071.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the cost of works exceeds $2m.

Proposal

 

Demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a multi dwelling housing development containing 6x3 bedroom dwellings and basement car parking for 11 vehicles. The development is contained within two blocks (Block A and Block B), above a common basement car parking level consisting of 11 car spaces. Block A contains three storeys and block B contains two storeys.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Beach Street Street, is rectangular in shape and has an area of 1284sqm. The site contains a two storey dwelling and sits on a property that rises towards the rear, away from the front with the difference in level from the front to the rear being up to 1.58m. The site also slopes from north to south with the difference in level from side to side being on average 1m and up to 1.5m.  As indicated in the applicants Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) the immediate context is strongly influenced by 3 mature fig trees in the street, which will be retained as part of the proposed development. The western side of Beach Street is zoned R3 for medium density development and generally comprises deep and narrow blocks. The site is distinguishable from these other properties, along this side of Beach Street, due its larger frontage width (25.45m).

 

Surrounding development is residential with a mixture of single dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and multi storey walk up residential flat buildings. The neighbouring properties contain all these examples of built form, namely the adjoining southern side neighbour at No. 36 Beach Street occupied by a semi-detached dwelling (see figure 2), a single detached dwelling to the north at No. 30 Beach Street (see figure 3) and further northward two four storey residential flat buildings located at No. 26 & 28 Beach Street (see figure 4). To the rear of the subject site residential flat buildings front Arden Street.

 

Figure 1: subject site contains a two storey palatial home with several outbuildings and large open spaces throughout. The existing dwelling is elevated above natural ground level by approximately 880mm at the front a characteristic exhibited in buildings on adjoining properties whose ground levels are elevated above natural ground level particularly at the front.

 

 

Figure 2: Adjoining properties to the south at No. 36 and 38 Beach Street: Two semi-detached dwellings.

 

 

Figure 3: Adjoining property to the north at No. 28 Beach Street single storey dwelling

 

Figure 4: Further to the north, two four storey walk up flat buildings are located at No. 28 and 26 Beach Street from left to right. Both flat buildings are one built form. The proposed developments rear setback is in line with the rear setback of the flat building at left. These buildings are setback around 3m from their southern side boundaries.

 

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:

 

·      Clovelly Precinct Committee

·      4/79 & 13/79 Arden Street, Coogee

·      30 Beach Street, Coogee

·      36 Beach Street, Coogee

 

Issue:

 

·      Request that Council ensure that the plan adheres to minimum LEP and DCP parking requirements for this site

 

Comment:

The development does not meet the RLEP standard for overall height, and the DCP control for external wall height and setbacks. The non-compliances are relatively minor having regard to the overall height standard and the setback controls and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties or the streetscape character. Whilst the proposal varies the height limits it nonetheless satisfies the objectives of the controls as a result of the redistribution of floor area to the front building (building A) and the proposed two building block scheme achieves a better planning outcome having regard to the neighbouring properties amenity with particular reference to solar access.

 

·      Noise during a lengthy construction period

 

Comment: A Construction noise and vibration management plan is required to be provided prior to the commencement of works. This plan is to ensure that the development does not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents. The noise plan is required to be prepared in accordance with the NSW EPA Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, and is to be implemented throughout the works. 

 

·      The rear two-storey building when compared with the existing dwelling on the site is larger and closer to the rear boundary. Request a redesign so that it is more consistent with the scale and location of the existing dwelling.

 

Comment: The proposed scale and location of the rear building (building B) is integral to the site strategy which encompasses two building blocks and will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties when compared with a single building.

 

·      The proposed development has windows and balconies facing directly west and north resulting in adverse privacy impacts on east facing windows of units facing the site and the rear yards of neighbouring properties to the north and south

 

There will be no significant privacy impacts in so far as the upper level of building B contains bedroom windows with 1.6m sill heights. Bedrooms are generally low use rooms and contain their own privacy measures and will not result in any significant privacy impacts on neighbouring properties. The proposed 6m rear setback is also only marginally short of the DCP minimum and the proposed development is approximately 12m from the opposite building which is considered sufficient for the purposes of privacy protection. In relation to the privacy impact on the adjoining properties to the north and south side of the subject site, it is considered that the proposed balconies facing the middle courtyard are appropriate for the purposes of privacy in so far as they have a shallow depth, they are adequately screened along their sides, and connected to bedrooms.

 

·      The proposed two storey structure will obstruct views of the open sky from units within the rear flat building facing the subject site.

 

Comment: There will be some loss of amenity having regard to the outlook from these east facing units, however, it is not considered that these impacts on views warrant any amendments to the development as a whole in so far as the proposed height and scale of the rear building is well within the maximum overall height standard under the RLEP and the overall height of building A is only marginally over the RLEP limit.

 

·      Light spillage from rear facing windows and balconies will cause a nuisance to east facing apartments at the rear

 

Comment: There are no rear west facing balconies within Building B. In relation to the west facing bedroom windows, it is not anticipated that the light within these rooms will cause a nuisance to the units facing the subject site.

 

·      The proposed development is not consistent with the size and character of the surrounding Federation and California Bungalow style free standing and semi-detached dwellings within the immediate area and on the heritage items opposite.

 

The proposed development will not detract from the character of the surrounding buildings. Councils Heritage planner has assessed the proposal and considers that the proposed development will not detract from the heritage items in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

·      The front setback does not align with the alignment of the adjoining buildings

 

Noted, however the front setback is considered acceptable having regard to the predominant setback along the visual catchment. See also discussion of front setback under the key issues section of this report.

 

·      The proposed development does not meet the gradient entry requirements and will add strain to the parking along Beach Street

 

Councils Development Engineer is satisfied with the access arrangements subject to conditions. The proposed development provides sufficient parking on site.

 

·      Proposed development is setback only 3m from the side boundaries and does not meet the 4m control required by the DCP

 

Noted, however the proposed stepped setbacks ranging from between 3 to 4m are considered acceptable having regard to the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the rhythm of side setbacks within Beach Street. See also discussion under key issues section of this report.

 

·      Proposed development is setback only 6m from the rear boundary and does not meet the 7.6m control required by the DCP

 

Noted. See discussion of rear setbacks and other associated sections within this report.

 

·      The proposed development is not aesthetically pleasing and will have a negative impact on the surrounding properties.

 

Councils Design Review Panel has reviewed the proposed development and considers that the aesthetics have been developed satisfactorily and the building should make a good contribution to the surrounding area.

 

·      The non-compliant external wall height will detract from views within our living room and kitchen – 30 Beach Street.

 

These windows are ground level openings and the view of the subject site and the street are across the subject sites side boundary and would be lost with any reasonable development of the subject site. The proposed two building block scheme allows for more open spaces when viewed from the neighbouring properties than that which would be afforded by a single building.

                     

·      The excavation within the site exceeds Council controls

 

The basement is proposed to be excavated more than 1m below ground level. The level of excavation is considered acceptable. This aspect of the development is not considered to eventuate in any unreasonable environmental impacts and could be feasibly regulated by conditions of consent to ensure the protection of surrounding properties during demolition, excavation and construction.

 

·      No details of side fencing are provided with the application.

 

A dividing fence would be subject to the exempt and complying development provisions of the SEPP Exempt and Complying Development Codes 2008 and if it does not satisfy the relevant criteria a separate DA will be required. The ground level generally follows the natural ground level of the site except for the drying court to unit 1 along the southern side boundary, whereby a condition is included requiring the land level along the southern side boundary to reduced so that it is generally consistent with the existing ground level. It is also noted that a dividing fence is ultimately a matter between the respective neighbours under the Dividing Fences Act, after any necessary development approvals have been issued.

 

·      Removal of the rear fig tree may result in structural damage to adjoining properties

 

Suitable conditions of consent will ensure the protection of surrounding properties during excavation.

 

·      Request that the Construction Management Plan be made public and request details on what precautions will be undertaken to ensure no structural damage to our property

 

The Construction Management Plan is not required to be made public. However, it is noted that a request can be made to Council under separate cover to obtain a copy of the Construction Site Management Plan of which a copy is required to be submitted to Council as part of Construction Certificate documentation. It is also noted that details of excavation and appropriate qualified certification be provided that ensures the structural stability of neighbouring properties.

 

·      The proposal is an over-development of the site,

 

The proposal complies with the FSR development standard in RLEP 2012. As detailed below in the key issues section, the impacts of the development are considered to be acceptable. The proposal is therefore not considered to result in an overdevelopment of the site.

 

·      The proposed front setback will result in additional overshadowing to the east facing master bedroom window of No. 36 Beach Street.

 

Whilst the proposed development front setback will result in additional overshadowing to the southern neighbours east facing master bedroom window this will only occur during the early morning period and only for a very limited time. It is also noted that the existing street trees are of significant scale and currently overshadow this part of the neighbouring dwelling. Notwithstanding, the east facing window is to a bedroom and not protected under Council’s solar access control.

 

·      The location of living areas facing the middle courtyard has the potential to result in adverse noise impacts

 

The noise and visual amenity resulting from the living areas opening onto private open space in the middle of the site has the potential to result in adverse visual and privacy impacts. It is considered that the provision of reasonably sized side fencing (conditioned to satisfy exempt criteria) and appropriate landscaping along the side elevation adjoining neighbouring properties will reasonably ameliorate visual and acoustic noise impacts from the proposed development.

 

·      Unsure of the boundary wall sought to replace the removal of the existing outbuilding located along this side boundary.

 

A suitable condition has been included to address side fencing.

 

·      Would like to see some sparse taller greenery along the southern side elevation to improve levels of privacy to 36 Beach Street.

 

Currently the application includes larger trees located along the southern side boundary alongside Building A. The trees located along the southern side of the site are 2-3m in height at maturity.

 

·      36 Beach Street request the removal of the oversized fig trees on the footpath due to their physical impact on the footpath and safety.

 

These trees are required to be retained given the amenity that they provide and their contribution to the streetscape and suitable condition (4) is included. Whilst it is acknowledged that the footpath may be lifting in some parts these matters can be addressed through management.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012)

The following table considers the proposed development having regard to the zoning provisions and development standards contained in RLEP 2012 that are of relevance to the subject development application:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

The site is zoned R3 - Medium Density Residential.

Lot size (Min)

N/A

822m2

N/A

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.75:1

0.69:1

 

Yes.

 

Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

10m

No*

 

*See exception to development standard below.

 

Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential Zone.

The objectives of R3 Low Density Residential zone seek to:

 

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

•      To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density residential environment;

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

•      To protect the amenity of residents;

•      To encourage housing affordability;

 

The proposed two building arrangement is an appropriate site strategy providing a large open area in the middle of the site ensuring greater levels of solar access to the north facing living room windows of the neighbouring property to the south at No. 36 Beach Street. This redistribution of floor space to the front and rear of the site as opposed to a single built form as exhibited within other properties with residential flat buildings in the area, namely those at No.26 and 28 Beach Street, ensures greater solar access amenity to southern neighbour’s north facing windows. The various non-compliances with the overall height are minor and largely a result of a fall in the land level to the south of the subject site which is a topographic constraint exhibited within sites along sections of Beach Street. The buildings within these properties with similar conditions are generally elevated above ground level and exhibit large walls and overall heights at the low and in some instances at the higher end of their respective properties. Further, the proposal’s non-complying side setback is also relatively minor and is in general greater than the side setbacks of other buildings along this section of Beach Street.

 

As will be discussed throughout this report, the proposed two building block scheme adequately minimises amenity impacts and provides greater levels of amenity than that which would be afforded by a complying single built form. The proposed scheme also recognises the elements of the existing and likely development within the streetscape whilst also recognising the low density built form of adjoining properties.

 

Overall, the scheme is considered to represent a better planning outcome in the context of the site conditions, it will contribute to the desired future character of the medium density residential area and satisfactorily protects the amenity of adjoining residents.

 

The proposal is considered to satisfy the objectives of the zone.

 

Building Height

The proposal contravenes the maximum height standard contained in clause 4.3 (2A) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation is summarized in the table and illustrated in Figures 1 – 4 containing excerpts from the submitted plans below:

 

 

Height

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal – Building A

9.25m and 10m* along southern elevation

Proposal – Building B

6.04m and 6.68m

Excess above RLEP Standard A

5.2% (Building A)

 

Figure 1 | Southern elevation demonstrating height non-compliance

 

Figure 2 | Northern Elevation of Building A demonstrating height compliance

 

Figure 3 | Beach Street eastern elevation demonstrating comparative heights and extent of height non-compliance. Note the adjoining building to the right – 30 Beach Street is a single storey dwelling and the RL50.66 is the ridge line of the flat building at No. 28 Beach Street.

 

Request to vary development standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment comments:

 

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

 

Building A:

 

With respect to Building A, the maximum height will be 10m located at the front eastern and southern side elevation of the development and is a consequence of the downward slope of the land (towards the south) as shown in figure 1 further above. The northern elevation of building A complies with the maximum building height standard.

 

It is recognised that as the development moves to the rear the building height falls relative to ground level and larger southern side setbacks are provided where the development exceeds the maximum overall height the most.

 

In addition to larger side setbacks being provided along the highest sections of the development that is at the front southern side elevation, the proposed development has been designed with good levels of articulation with balconies and south east facing window projections that will assist in minimising the bulk and scale of the building. They will also minimise the visibility of the upper building portion from the street frontage emphasising more the lower levels of the building.

 

The main consideration is whether or not the additional height caused by the non-compliant height will result in a significant impact to the amenity of neighbouring properties in comparison to a compliant situation. The proposed distribution of floor area into two built forms where building A contains most floor area is considered a better planning outcome as it allows for both a smaller scale of built form within Building B at the rear and also provides a sizable open area within the middle of the site allowing for solar access to be provided to the southern neighbour’s north facing windows. The applicant has suitably demonstrated that the proposed development will achieve more solar access to the southern neighbours north facing ground level windows than that which would be achieved by a compliant one block scheme.

 

The applicant has also demonstrated greater levels of solar access would be retained to a hypothetical first floor addition to the southern neighbours dwelling and its openings.

 

The additional height to building A will be of little consequence to any visual privacy implications subject to the proposed upper level balconies along the southern and northern elevations being made non-trafficable.

 

In relation to the rear yard of the southern neighbour’s property, the critical elevation in terms of visual and amenity impacts (particularly in terms of overshadowing to the rear private open space of the southern neighbours property) is opposite Building B which has an overall height of 6.68m along its southern elevation which is substantially below the permissible 9.5m overall height limit.

 

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

 

The applicant has also provided a plan shown in figure 4 below, a schematic development potential of the adjoining development at No. 30 Beach Street as well as the size of the existing flat building further north at No. 28 Beach Street.

 

Figure 4 | Schematic scheme of building form of No. 30 Beach Street, proposed development at left and the existing flat building at No. 28 Beach Street at right.,

 

In conjunction with the schematic streetscape elevation shown in Figure 3 above, it is considered that despite the proposed development exceeding the overall height standard within Building A it will fit in with the existing as well as likely future development patterns along this section of Beach Street and will provide for a better planning outcome having particular regard to the improved levels of solar access to the southern neighbour’s north facing living room windows.

 

The assessment can be summarised as follows:

 

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

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

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

·        The breach of the height limit does not create an inconsistency with the objectives of the zone;

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

·        The distribution of floor area to building A will fit in with the future streetscape character, it allows for smaller scale of built form within building B whose rear setback is generally in line with flat building further north ultimately allowing for an large open space area within the middle of the site

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be satisfactory. The variation will enable a well-considered development to be provided that addresses the site constraints, streetscape and relevant objectives of both the standards and the zone. Further, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity or environmental impacts and will largely achieve greater levels of amenity than that which would be afforded by a one block scheme.  In this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable. 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·     To protect the amenity of residents.

·     To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Randwick 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.

 

Site planning

The scheme entails two (2) building forms of three (3) and two (2) storeys being buildings A and B respectively. The building A form is located to the eastern end of the site fronting Beach Street, with a secondary form – building B, sited to the western end of the site, 6m from the rear boundary.

 

The DCP identifies this strategy as possible in certain circumstances:

 

Two Block / Courtyard Example:

Application:

·      Both narrow, elongated allotments and wider allotments;

·      Allotments with rear lane access;

·      Allotments with significant level difference or steep slope;

·      East-west oriented allotments where overshadowing from the adjoining property to the north forms a major constraint; and/or

·      The adjoining developments have significant building mass with habitable room windows oriented to the common boundaries.

 

Figure 10: DCP figure identifying potential for two (2) building forms in certain circumstances.

 

The two (2) block strategy is considered a suitable planning outcome in the specific circumstances of this site, with regard to the objectives of this section of the DCP for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed site strategy, in combination with circumstances of site orientation, the change in built form controls to the south and north and sloping topography, all serve to provide added benefits of the two (2) block layout to southern and northern neighbours. Specifically, the open space area in the middle of the site provides greater benefits having regard to more solar access to the southern neighbours north facing windows and also provides an open area adjacent to the northern neighbour’s rear yard. The strategy adequately responds to surrounding context, the low scale of development on adjoining allotments particularly to the south.

·      The layout generally results in less impacts to adjoining lower density developments, including bulk and scale, shadow and privacy implications than that which would occur with a complying development;

·      The length of the building components is consistent with the two (2) block approach anticipated by the DCP;

 

The scheme meets the objectives of Building Design set out in Clause 2.1 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C2 – Medium Density Residential and despite non-compliances with some controls it will result in a better planning outcome across the site in the context of the surrounding area.

 

Front setbacks

Ground level planter

 

The ground planter box in front of unit 1 has a height of 1.9m above the existing ground level which is greater than the 1.2m limit under the DCP and setback 3m from the front boundary.

 

Main built form

 

The main built form has alternating front setbacks as follows:

 

·      Ground level: 6.5m from the front boundary

·      First floor level: 7.2m

·      Second floor level:  7.2m

 

These front setbacks are closer to the front than those of the adjoining dwellings at No. 36 and 30 Brach Street which are setback 8.95m and 9.9m from the their respective front boundaries.

 

The DCP requires that front setbacks are consistent with the prevailing front setback line across the street. The DCP also allows for 3m setbacks which is less than the average where the area is in transition requiring a merit assessment to be carried out against the setback objectives of the DCP. Given the adjoining dwellings are single dwellings, the area is zoned medium density residential and there are medium density developments at No, 26 and 28 Beach street with setbacks of approximately 6m,  it is considered that a merit assessment against the following setback objectives is warranted.

 

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

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

 

The proposed front setbacks of both the planter and the main built form are considered to satisfy the abovementioned objectives for the following reasons:

 

Ground level planter

The ground level planter box’s height and location between the front building and the front boundary is only limited to a small section compared with the sites frontage - measuring only 3.9m across a 25.54m frontage. The elevated nature of the planter and the ground level behind is an inherent characteristic along the street where ground levels are elevated above natural ground levels along this section of Beach Street. The planters and deep soil areas at the front of the site will generally provide a fencing form along the street. Further, the stepping of these landscape elements will soften the appearance of this larger planter box from street level and as a whole it is considered that the proposed planters and landscaping follows the natural land form along the front and efficiently distributes the bulk across the front of the site. The proposed development also provides contiguous areas for the retention of open space inclusive of deep soil planting throughout.

 

Main built form

In relation to the main built form, the proposed development is considered to be well designed incorporating suitable façade design and articulation, whereby the application has been the subject of advice and favourable review by the Urban Design Review Panel in line with the design quality principles for multi storey residential developments under SEPP 65. Further, the articulation and resultant redistributed floor area towards the front will achieve very high levels of internal amenity to the future occupants of the apartments that have dual aspect and natural cross ventilation. As indicated previously the location further towards the front will also serve to provide greater open area within the middle of the site. In relation to its relationship with wider context, the proposed development will continue to achieve a strong edge to Beach Street from ground level and the upper levels will for the most part be of an open design balconies.

 

The bulk and scale of the new development will continue to reinforce positive neighbourhood amenity and character and responds to the scale of the street and surrounding buildings of most note being the residential flat buildings located at No. 26 and 28 Beach Street which exhibit a similar front setback than that being proposed. Whilst the adjoining buildings to the side boundaries at no. 30 and 36 Beach Street are single dwellings and therefore of a smaller scale than the proposed development, the fact is that the buildings within these properties including the existing building within the subject site contain significantly larger front setbacks than that exhibited along the majority of Beach Street. Moreover, although the front setback of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling to the south is unlikely to change, the adjoining dwelling to the north at No. 30 Beach Street is unencumbered by an adjoining built form and contains a sizable area of land that may in future be developed for the purposes of medium density development. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development retains adequate separation between these dwellings and will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to these properties.

 

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

 

Overall, the proposed development responds well to the front setback objectives  and the proposed development contains good levels of façade design and articulation and will therefore satisfy the relevant objectives under this section of the DCP.

 

Side setbacks

The components of the proposed development that don’t meet the minimum 4m side setback control under the DCP include the rear half of building A and building B which are setback 3.09m from the side boundaries– as shown in figure 6 below.

 

Figure 6: parts of the development that are sited within the 4m minimum side setback control under the DCP are shown by red arrows and those parts of the building in compliance with the setback controls are shown by purple arrows.

 

An assessment is therefore required against the following objectives for setbacks under the DCP:

 

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

·      To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views.

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

 

The proposed side setbacks of the abovementioned parts of the proposed development will satisfy the relevant objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed side setbacks are greater than the side setbacks of the neighbouring buildings at No. 36 Beach Street and contain similar setbacks to those flat buildings located further north at No. 26 and 28 Beach Street. The proposed development also provides 4m complying side setbacks for the front parts of both buildings and will not detract from the side setbacks of neighbouring buildings.

 

·      The setbacks provided will continue to ensure reasonable visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, and air circulation between properties.

 

·      In relation to solar access, the local subdivision pattern and orientation of the allotments on an east-west axis renders the adjoining property to the south quite vulnerable to overshadowing. Although the non-complying side setbacks contain external wall heights that exceed the 8m maximum under the DCP, these non-compliances are compensated for by the two built form of the development as a whole which provides a sizable open space area within the middle of the site ensuring solar access is retained to the southern neighbours north facing windows which would ordinarily be lost with a single built form. Moreover, the articulation provided within the building by virtue of the redistribution of the building envelope and fenestration responds well to both the streetscape and minimises impacts of visual bulk and scale upon neighboring properties and is supported on the basis of good planning principles of urban design.

 

·      The site retains contiguous areas for open space and deep soil planting throughout the site

 

Rear Setback

The proposed development has a rear setback of 6m and does not meet the 7.6m minimum rear setback that should be provided on a site of this depth. Concessions are generally made for variations to the rear setback where a central courtyard is provided, which is the case in the present scheme. The proposed rear building component sits roughly 6m off the rear boundary which is marginally short of the required.

 

As discussed in respect of site planning above, the two (2) block with courtyard form of the scheme is considered appropriate with regard to the topography, orientation and zoning characteristics of this site. 

 

From the perspective of rear adjoining property at No. 79 Arden Street, it sits 1.5m above the ground level of the subject site and with fencing above presents added bulk and the proposed rear setback will not result in any appreciable adverse impacts due to its variation. Further the proposed rear first floor level of building B contains bedrooms which are not used as intensively as living areas and with the added protection measure of relatively high 1.6m sill heights it is not considered that the neighbouring property or units within the adjoining property to the rear will suffer from any significant or unreasonable privacy impacts.

 

The proposed rear setback of building B will also result in additional overshadowing impact on the southern neighbour’s rear yard area. Despite this the proposed development will not result in significant overshadowing to this neighbours rear yard when compared with a complying development scheme. The additional overshadowing when compared with a complying development will occur to the section of rear yard adjacent to the rear lean to structure along this property’s southern side boundary with solar access retained to the neighbour’s rear yard housing their clothes line after 11am during the winter solstice.

 

The proposed rear setback is generally consistent with the rear setback of the flat building located at No. 28 Beach Street.

 

The proposed building B has been designed with only two storeys with a wall height that is significantly less than that permitted under the DCP.

 

Overall, an increased rear setback is not considered necessary given the overall distribution of bulk throughout the site maintains reasonable levels of solar access and amenity to the surrounding developments and contiguous areas for the creation of open space and deep soil planting are provided throughout the site.

 

External wall height

Building A of the scheme has a wall height that varies between 9.67m at the front of the southern elevation to 9.32m at the rear of the southern elevation exceeding the 8m maximum wall height control under the DCP.

 

The areas of non-compliance vary across the sloping nature of the site with the most obvious non-compliances occurring at the southern elevation. An assessment of the non-complying external wall heights of the development is therefore required against the following objectives under the DCP:

 

·      To ensure that the building form provides for interesting roof forms and is compatible with the streetscape.

·      To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces.

·      To control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity.

 

The proposed development will satisfy the abovementioned objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The variation in height largely stems from the slope of the site in combination with the site planning for the two built forms encompassing the redistribution of floor area towards the front building (A), reserving open space areas in the middle of the site and providing a two storey scale for the rear building (B) which has an external wall height that is substantially less than that permissible under the DCP

 

·      The scale of building A will fit in with the existing scale and medium density of development along Beach Street without resulting in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed wall heights within building A are significantly greater than the 8m limit under the DCP, it is nonetheless considered a good planning outcome as it is largely confined to the front part of the site which is able to accommodate the external wall height without resulting in any significantly greater amenity impacts.

 

·      The massing of the walls along all elevations are well articulated achieved by using a mix in materials, openings and varying side setbacks that serve to both break up the expanses of wall across the elevations creating visual interest when viewed from neighbouring properties;

 

·      The scale of the proposed development will be consistent with the likely future scale and density in the locality given the compliance with the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and minimal non-compliance with the maximum height standards under the RLEP.

 

Overall, having regard the slope of the site and the levels of non-compliance it is considered that the proposed developments external wall heights will satisfy the objectives for external wall heights under the DCP.

 

Solar access and overshadowing

The development is subject to the DCP solar access objectives and controls that seek to ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximizes solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces and retention of reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

The level of solar access to living areas and open spaces of the development are acceptable. In relation to the level of solar access to the neighbouring property to the south at No. 36 beach Street, the solar access impacts associated with the site orientation and medium density zoning of the subject site are to an extent inevitable with any development of 32-34 Beach Street. In light of this, the impact of the present scheme of two built forms leaves a sizable open area in the middle of the site and provides a greater level of solar access to the southern neighbours north facing openings and rear yard for the majority of the day between 9am and 3pm during the winter solstice. This proposed scheme provides greater levels of solar access to this neighbours north facing ground level openings as well as a notional first floor level window plane than that which would be afforded by a complying single built form.

 

The shadow diagram excerpts below show a comparison of shadow impact from the proposed scheme that is two built form followed by shadow impact from a complying one built form scheme. These show that the majority of the neighbours north facing windows as well as a notional first floor addition with a window plane would receive greater levels of solar access from the proposed development than a complying scheme would provide.

 

Proposed 9am shadow: the applicant has also shown a notional first floor level and window zone. Solar access will be retained to the north facing rumpus room window.

 

Complying 9am shadow: Greater overshadowing will occur to the rumpus room window (furthest to rear) and a notional top level

 

 

 

Proposed 10am shadow: solar access will occur to the bed, living, kitchen windows

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complying 10am shadow scheme: No solar access to the bedroom, living room, kitchen room windows

 

 

 

 

Proposed 11am shadow: Solar access to the two bedroom windows, living, and kitchen windows

 

 

Complying 11am shadow: No solar access to the ground level north facing windows and scheme will result in more shadow to the notional upstairs window line.

 

 

 

Proposed 12 noon shadow: solar access to the two bedroom windows

 

 

Complying 12 noon shadow: No solar access to ground level windows

 

 

Proposed 1pm shadow: Solar access to the living and two bedroom windows

 

Complying 1pm shadow: No solar access to ground

 

 

Proposed 2pm shadow: Solar access to bath and bedroom windows

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complying 2pm shadow: No solar access

 

 

 

Proposed 3pm shadow: No solar access to ground however solar access is retained to notional first floor window line

 

 

 

Complying 3pm shadow: no solar access to ground and no solar access to first floor notional window line

 

 

Proposed 4pm shadow from the proposed scheme: very limited solar access to notional window plane at first floor levels and no solar access to ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complying 4pm shadow: greater solar access to notional first floor window line

 

 

Overall the proposed distribution of floor area towards the front building (A) is a skillful response to the abovementioned site constraints ensuring more solar access to the southern neighbours north facing living room windows at ground level and a notional top level. The methods through which floor space have been distributed is considered satisfactory, recognising the form of existing development on neighbouring properties and that likely to eventuate to both the southern and northern neighboring properties through the planning controls. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the objectives for solar access and overshadowing under the DCP.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

The objectives for visual privacy under the DCP seek:

 

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

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

 

The objectives for acoustic privacy under the DCP seek:

 

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

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

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

 

An assessment of visual and acoustic privacy associated with the proposed developments windows and private open spaces is carried out as follows:

 

·      Windows

 

Visual and acoustic privacy from windows is largely assured by the following measures:

 

§  Window openings to upper levels are to low use bedrooms only which will contain their own privacy measures

§  A reasonable offsetting of windows is incorporated between existing and proposed developments.

 

The second floor south and north facing doorway openings connected to unit 1 and unit 3 respectively

 

Both of these doorways are connected to living rooms and will have an outlook across the roof and front yards of the neighbouring properties. As these doorways are connected to a high use living room and the balconies directly face the side boundaries, they have the potential to result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts for the current as well as future development of these neighbouring properties. In order to limit the potential for an adverse impact a condition is included requiring the northern and southern sides of the second floor balconies within building A to be made non-trafficable.

 

·      Private open space:

 

The proposed development contains the following areas of private open spaces:

 

§  Ground level terraces and side courtyards

§  Upper level balconies

 

Ground level terraces and side courtyards

 

The majority of ground level terraces and side courtyards generally maintain existing ground levels throughout the site and will not result in any significant adviser privacy impacts. However, the proposed side courtyard to unit 1 along the southern side boundary is elevated between 820mm and 1050mm above the existing ground levels. In order to minimise the need for a significantly sized fence along this side boundary and in order to maintain an overland flow path down to the front of the site a suitable condition. This may require steps from the main ground level terrace at the rear of unit 1 to drop down into this side area.  Further a standard fence as well as landscaping will ensure reasonable amenity is maintained to the southern neighbours dwelling and their openings.

 

First floor level balconies

 

The proposed first level balconies are suitably configured such that there will be no obvious overlooking into habitable room windows of the neighbouring buildings. The balconies facing the middle courtyard contain blade walls ensuring suitable restriction of views into neighbouring properties. Moreover these balconies are located off bedrooms and of a shallow depth ensuring no objectionable privacy impacts.

 

Second floor balconies

 

As indicated previously the second floor balconies within building A wrapping around to the southern and northern elevations have been suitably conditioned to be non-trafficable.

 

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 recommended as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned).

 

The applicant has provided reasonable planning arguments that the proposed two built form and the distribution of floor area across the site although resulting in non-complying building heights, external wall heights and setbacks will nevertheless achieve a better planning outcome than that which would be achieved by a single built form and a complying development. The scheme is reasonable in the context of the planning controls applicable to the site and desired future character of the medium density residential area.

                                                  

The variations from the maximum building height standard under the RLEP 2012 have been adequately justified having regard to the objectives of the zone and the standard. The requirements of the RDCP have also been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report including that the proposals redistribution of the building floor area which responds well to both the streetscape and neighbouring properties providing articulation within the building as well as adequate separation that minimises impacts of overshadowing, visual bulk and scale upon neighbouring properties and is supported on the basis of good planning principles of urban design.

 

It is also considered that the conditions applied in the recommendation would alleviate outstanding issues related to privacy.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.3 (2A) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Building Height, 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. 27/2015 for demolition of the existing buildings and construction of a multi dwelling housing development containing 6x3 bedroom dwellings and basement car parking for 11 vehicles, at No. 32-34 Beach Street, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)     The A/C units for Building A (Front) and Building B (rear) shall be located in accordance with the plans received by Council on 13 February 2015. In particular, the A/C for Unit 1,3,5,6 shall be located on the ground floor level and greater than 3m from the side boundaries.  The A/C unit to Unit 4 shall be located within the rear courtyard and be greater than 4.5m from the boundary.  The A/C for Unit 2 shall be located within the rear courtyard and be sited greater than 11m from the rear units on the site.

 

b)     The northern and southern sides of the second floor balconies to units 1 & 3 shall be non-trafficable

 

c)     No consent is granted for fencing to the side or rear boundaries. Any new fencing shall be subject to a separate development application unless the fence design meets the exempt and complying development criteria specified under the SEPP Exempt and Complying Codes 2008.

 

d)     A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to southern side of the balcony of unit 1 guest bedroom and the northern side of the balcony of the unit 3 guest bedroom. The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screens may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

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 an Accredited Certifier or Randwick City Council.  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.

                                                                                                    

 

The following conditions are applied to provide adequate security against damage to Council’s infrastructure:

 

Protection of Street Trees

4.     In order to ensure retention of the three large and mature Ficus macrocarpa var. ‘Hillii’ (Hills Weeping Figs) located on Council’s Beach Street verge, being T1 to the south of the existing crossing, T2 just to the north of the existing crossing, and T3 towards the northern site boundary 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 three trees, with the position and diameter of both their trunks and canopies to be clearly and accurately shown on all plans in relation to the proposed works.

 

b.       Any excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar over public property can only be adjacent the southeast corner of the site, where connection will be made into Council’s 750mm diameter pipe, as is shown on the Stormwater Drainage Ground Floor Plan by LP Consulting, dwg C202, issue B dated 23/1/15.

 

c.       The development can only proceed on the basis of one of the two following options:

 

i)        The existing vehicle crossing must be retained and upgraded in exactly its current position;

 

OR;

 

ii)       The setback between excavations for the northern side of the proposed vehicle crossing and the trunk of T2 must be increased from approximately 1300mm as is currently shown on the Floor Plan by ASA Architects, dwg DA 100, issue B, dated 20.1.15, out to a minimum distance of 2 metres, measured off the outside edge of its trunk at ground level.

 

d.       Detailed plans demonstrating compliance with one of these two options must be submitted to, and be approved by, the Manager of Development Assessment, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

e.       The Certifying Authority/PCA must ensure that, prior to the commencement of any site works, an Arborist who holds a minimum of AQF Level 5 (“the site Arborist”) has been engaged for the duration of the project to undertake, supervise and monitor all aspects of the works relating to protection and preservation of these trees, and must ensure compliance with the conditions of consent, with all site staff to comply with any instructions issued.

 

f.        All initial excavations for the proposed internal basement entry ramp or for any other structures or services between the eastern wall of the basement level and eastern site boundary must be initially performed by hand directly by, or under the direct supervision of; the site Arborist, to a minimum depth of 600mm, without damaging any roots in the process.

 

g.       The site Arborist must then contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613), prior to proceeding further with any works, and giving at least 2 working days notice, to inspect these areas, with the applicant to comply with any instructions issued.

 

h.       Where roots with a diameter of less than 75mm are found which are in direct conflict with the works, and Council’s Officer gives permission for their pruning, they may be cut cleanly by hand, only by the site Arborist, with the affected areas to be backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

i.        Should Council’s Officer confirm that permission can be granted for major root pruning (in terms of size or quantity), for works either within the site or on public property for the new crossing, footpath, kerb or similar, this can only be performed by Council, wholly at the applicant’s cost.

 

j.        Upon completion of this major root pruning, the required fee will need to be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate

 

k.       These trees are to be physically protected by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 1.5 metres to their south and north (measured off the outside edge of their trunks at ground level), matching up with the back of the kerb to their east, and pedestrian footpath to their west, in order to completely enclose each tree for the duration of works.

 

l.        This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed, to which, signage containing the following words shall be clearly displayed and permanently attached: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ), DO NOT REMOVE/ENTER".

 

m.      Where further trunk or branch protection is required, this may be via wrapping layers of geo-textile, underfelt or layers of Hessian, to which, 2m lengths of 50mm x 100mm hardwood timbers, spaced at 150mm centres shall be placed around their circumference, and are to be secured by 8 gauge wires or steel strapping at 300mm spacing. NO nailing to the trunk.

 

n.       Where ground protection is required within the site so as to prevent root damage and compaction, this will comprise a 50mm layer of mulch, then strapped together rumble boards, plywood or similar, which 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.

 

o.       Within the TPZ’s, there is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble, with all Site Management Plans needing to acknowledge these requirements.

 

p.       The applicant is not authorised to perform any other works to these trees, and must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 should any other, further work appear necessary, with the applicant to cover all costs, to Council’s satisfaction, prior to the issue of an Occupation Certificate.

 

q.       Prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, the site Arborist must submit to, and have approved by, the PCA, a compliance report that confirms the dates of attendance on-site; the works that were performed to the trees, and that the conditions of development consent and any other ‘on-site’ instructions were complied with.

 

r.        The PCA must ensure compliance with all of the requirements listed above, as well as Appendix 7 of the Tree Assessment Report by Mark Bury Consulting, dated 9/12/14, during the course of works, and prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate.

 

s.      In the event of a discrepancy between the Arborists Report and the conditions of consent, the Arborist must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 to reach agreement on the outcome and course of action.

 

t.        A refundable deposit in the form of cash, credit card, cheque or bank guarantee (with no expiry date) for an amount of $20,000.00 must be paid at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development, in order to ensure compliance with the conditions listed in this consent, and ultimately, preservation of the trees.

 

The refundable deposit will be eligible for refund following the issue of an Occupation Certificate, subject to completion and submission of Council’s ‘Security Deposit Refund Application Form’, and pending a satisfactory inspection by Council’s Landscape Development Officer (9399-0613).

 

Any contravention of Council's conditions relating to the trees at any time during the course of the works, or prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, may result in Council claiming all or part of the lodged security in order to perform any rectification works necessary, as per the requirements of 80A (6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 32-34 Beach Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover