Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 9 June 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                                                                                                      9 June 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, 9 June 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 - 12 May 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

Planning Matters

 

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

 

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

 

D39/15     14 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/835/2014).............................. 1

D40/15     1 Day Lane, Kensington (DA/87/2015)................................ 17

D41/15     4B Neptune Street, Coogee (DA/250/2015).......................... 25

D42/15     6 Conway Avenue, Randwick (DA/256/2015)........................ 35

D43/15     408 Malabar Road, Maroubra (DA/1053/2010/A)................... 41

D44/15     79 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/127/2015)................ 47

D45/15     A401/106 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/134/2015)................... 73

D46/15     307 -327R Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra (DA/265/2015)....... 81

D47/15     15 Monmouth Street, Randwick (DA/910/2014).................. 113

Miscellaneous Reports

M4/15       Review of the 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan - March Quarterly Report............................................................... 133    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D39/15

 

 

Subject:                  14 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/835/2014)

Folder No:               DA/835/2014

Author:                    Elise  Crameri , Planning Consultant - APP Corporation Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Conversion of existing car spaces and void at ground floor level of an existing residential flat building to a new three bedroom dwelling including five new car spaces at the rear of the site, new boundary fence and entry from Beach Street (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr R Glaser

Owner:                    Heglas Pl

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview64464.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as a Council employee is an opposite adjoining property.

Proposal

 

The proposed development is for infill development to an existing residential flat building.  The proposal involves the conversion of an undercroft parking area at ground floor and void above to accommodate a new three (3) bedroom apartment at the front of the existing residential building.  The three (3) car spaces that are displaced by the new apartment are proposed to be relocated to the rear of the building with an additional two (2) car spaces to service the additional apartment also provided.  No change to the height of the existing apartment building is proposed.

 

The existing building has a maximum FSR of 1.14:1 and currently exceeds the maximum 0.75:1 FSR development standard set out in RLEP 2012.  The existing development, as proposed to be amended, has an FSR of 1.28:1.  The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation of the FSR development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

Specifically, the proposal is inclusive of the following:

 

Ground Floor (ground level):

Remove three (3) existing parking spaces to accommodate a new three (3) bedroom apartment. The ground floor is intended to deliver an open plan living space with direct connection to the adjacent courtyard, located within the front setback of the site.

 

The proposed ground floor living spaces has a total floor area measuring 5.4 metres (deep) and 8.5 metres (wide) delivering a total of 45.9m² of active living space.

 

Mezzanine or first floor (within void above ground level)

The mezzanine or first floor of the apartment will contain passive living spaces, including three (3) bedrooms, one with ensuite and a family bathroom. Two (2) west facing balconies measuring 2 metres in depth are provided from each of the two (2) west facing bedrooms.  The upper level is an “L” shape that extends eastward into the site, converting current parking and storage areas into habitable living space. A second entry point is provided, through the adjacent semi-enclosed car park.

 

The Site

 

No. 14 Beach Street, Clovelly legally described as Lot 16 in DP 5397 (the site), is located on the north eastern side of Beach Street approximately 40 metres north of its intersection with Clovelly Road (refer to Figure 2).

 

The site is generally rectangular in shape with a primary street frontage to Beach Street of 15.24 metres and depth of 50.870 metres. The site has an approximate area of 774.8m².

 

The site falls from southwest to northeast from RL49.90 at the rear boundary to RL41.41 at the rear boundary, reflecting a landform change of 8.49 metres with a gradient of approximately 16 per cent.

 

The site currently contains a residential flat building comprising three levels of residential apartments above ground level parking and storage.

 

A shared vehicular and pedestrian entry in the form of a driveway from Beach Street is located in the northeastern corner of the site that extends westward providing vehicular entry to the at grade car park provided beneath the building and to the rear of the site.  This entry doubles as the main pedestrian entry that is located in the northern façade approximately half way down the building (refer to Figures 4 and 5).

 

 

 

Figure 1:  Existing Site Layout Plan (source: Porebski Architects)

 

 

Figure 2:  Street view of the site looking north west, from the eastern side of Beach Street

 

Figure 3: View of the site looking southwest, showing existing undercroft parking area

 

A separated pedestrian entry is located in the southeastern corner of the site and extends westward to the rear. This walkway also leads to the waste storage area.

 

The front setback is extensively hard paved and serves as a driveway and turning bay for vehicles accessing the undercroft car park. To the rear of the site is a small area of common open space (refer to Figure 4).

 

Figure 4: View of the site looking southwest, showing existing common open space

 

 

Figure 5: View of shared vehicular and pedestrian entry looking east

 

 

As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the built form of the existing apartment building is typical of its era, with minimal articulation in the building form.  The ground floor parking is a dominant visual feature of the building. Each apartment is served by private open space in the form of balconies, along all facades of the building.

 

The immediate surrounding locality does not reflect a single cohesive built form character, with a mix of building forms and typologies. The eastern side of Beach Street is typified by single storage detached dwellings while the western side is defined by residential flat buildings of various eras and forms.

 

The site is within close proximity to Clovelly Beach and the small retail / commercial strip along Clovelly Road.  The site is well served by public transport connections to the beach and Bondi Junction.

 

Figure 5: View along the western side of Beach Street showing low rise flat buildings

 

Figure 6: View along the eastern side of Beach Street showing detached dwellings

 

Key Issues

 

·     Variation to floor space ratio standard in Randwick LEP 2012

 

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

 

The existing building has a maximum FSR of 1.14:1 and currently exceeds the maximum 0.75:1 FSR development standard set out in RLEP 2012.  The existing development, as proposed to be amended, has an FSR of 1.28:1.  The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

(a)    The consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

(b)   The concurrence of the director General has been obtained

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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 a 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

 

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 Floor Space Ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4(1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

Applicant’s submission

The applicant’s submission provides contentions to demonstrate these objectives are satisfied, as evaluated below:

 

The following assessment is made against the objectives of the standard:

 

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

 

Applicant comment

The proposal is considered to satisfy Objective (a) in the following manner;

·      The proposal is a cleverly and well designed infill development.

·      There will be no change to the height or setbacks of the building as the proposal will sit within the existing building envelop and there will be no extension or change to the existing building footprint.

·      The character of the locality and the streetscape is varied and mixed as it comprises of smaller dwelling houses and larger scale medium density developments. Immediately adjoining developments consist of residential flat buildings. The nature and form of the development is compatible with the existing and future character of the area.

·      The scale of the building will change as it is currently three storey's in scale however the area to be "infilled" exists and is highly visible but is currently recognized as parking and a void area which is very unattractive. Its conversion will create a more visually attractive building although this will result in an increase in the scale which will then be interpreted as five storeys rather than three storeys.

·      Despite the change in the scale (although only visual) the overall height and bulk of the building will remain unchanged and as such there will be no alteration to the physical appearance and definition of the street network by the development.

·      The proposal will be a small change and in essence affect the visual appearance of the building only as there are no adverse amenity impacts generated and the benefits of the scheme far outweigh the costs.

 

Assessment

The size and scale of the proposed development is satisfactory – refer to summary comments below.

 

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

 

Applicant comment

The proposal is considered to satisfy Objective (b) in the following manner;

·      The space exists and has been very sensitively and smartly designed to create an dwelling will excellent internal amenity whilst greatly improving the overall appearance of the building and streetscape.

·      The existing covered car parking spaces and the large void space above is a highly visible area that detracts from the overall appearance of the building. The car spaces have contributed to the whole front area of the development being concreted to provide driveway access to the spaces.

·      The proposal will create a generous landscaped area at the front of the site by relocating the car parking spaces to the rear which will benefit existing occupants and improve the visual appearance of the streetscape. The vegetation at the front will assist in screening the lower levels of the building.

·      In addition the new dwelling which is catered for within the building envelope is well articulated and designed to balance and harmonise with the scale and form of the existing flat building.

·      It has been designed to have excellent internal amenity and will also increase the diversity and mix of housing within the building.

 

Assessment

The existing building, as proposed to be altered, makes a positive contribution to the built form in the area – refer to summary comments below.

 

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

 

Applicant comment

The site does not contain a heritage item, is not in a conservation area, and is not adjacent to any heritage items.

 

Assessment

The proposal does not adversely impact upon any conservation area or heritage item.

 

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

 

Applicant comment

The proposal is considered to satisfy Objective (d) in the following manner;

·      The overall height and setbacks of the existing building will remain unchanged and since the new works are located solely within the confines of the building envelope there will be no additional overshadowing created.

·      There will be no view loss.

·      There will be no adverse impacts in terms of privacy or overlooking as the four new windows are small scale and located towards the front of the site and will not look into any living areas or areas of private open space of adjoining properties. The two new balconies on the first floor are located off bedrooms and will be infrequently utilised however face the street which is their preferred location as stipulated by the provisions in Council's DCP.

·     

 

 
The amenity of the public domain will be enhanced by the provision of landscaped area at the front of the site in lieu of driveway area.

·      As such there will be no adverse  or detrimental amenity  impacts generated by  this sensitively designed "infill" development.

 

Assessment

The proposed increase in floor space does not result in a change in the height, bulk or scale of existing residential building.  The proposal makes use of an existing undercroft area at the front of the building. The existing residential building, as proposed to be altered, remains consistent with the existing and future character of the area - refer to summary comments below.

 

1.     Consistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone objectives

The relevant zone objectives are:

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

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

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

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

·          To protect the amenity of residents.

·          To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Applicant comment

The proposed residential flat building is permissible in the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and it is considered that the additional floor space does not raise any inconsistency with the zone objectives. It will not increase the visual bulk of the building as the space is already there and highly visible at present. It will increase the mix and diversity of housing in the building as currently there are only 1 bedroom and 2 bedroom units and the new 3 bedroom unit will further increase housing choice and variety.

 

The proposed floor space is contextually appropriate and will achieve suitable streetscape, urban design and amenity outcomes (both internally and externally). The building is already quite a large and prominent one. The infill development will only improve its visual appearance and create a more contemporary articulated structure. There will be no adverse amenity impacts generated by the proposal in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or view loss. It aims to provide a positive contribution to the streetscape.

 

The high quality design outcome associated with the proposal as well as the high internal performance of the units and lack of external impacts further confirm that the proposal satisfies the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone

 

Assessment

The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives.

 

2.     Consistency with State and Regional planning policies

Assessment: The replacement of a low density development with a medium density development is consistent with State and Regional planning policies.

 

3.     The variation allows for a better planning outcome

Assessment: The proposal allows for the orderly an economic use of the site without adverse amenity impacts for adjacent sites.

 

4.     There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

Assessment:  The proposal does not trigger any adverse outcomes for the natural or built environment that would otherwise not occur were the scheme strictly complaint with the FSR control.

 

5.     The variation is in the public interest

Assessment: No circumstances have been identified to indicate that the development would not be in the public interest.

 

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

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

 

7.     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.

 

In response to the above it is noted:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Assessment Summary

In summary, it is considered that strict compliance with the FSR development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

•    The proposed increase in floor space is relatively minor (i.e. only 110m2).

•    The proposed increase in floor space does not result in a change in the height, bulk or scale of existing residential building.  The proposal makes use of an existing undercroft area at the front of the building.

•    The existing residential building, as proposed to be altered, remains consistent with the existing and future character of the area.

•    The proposed increase in floor space does not manifest in any adverse environmental impact in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, view loss or privacy impacts to adjoining and neighbouring land on the basis that:

 

-     The new three (3) bedroom apartment is to be accommodated within the building envelope of an existing building, making use of an existing undercroft area currently used for car parking.  No change to the height or footprint of the existing building is proposed.  The additional floor space is accommodated at the front of the building, facing Beach Street and does not create an overbearing relationship to adjoining residential buildings located to the north and south of the site.

-     The proposed development does not result in any additional overshadowing of adjoining residential buildings to the north, south and west of the site.

-     The proposed infilling of the ground and mezzanine level at the front of the existing building does not result in an increase in the overall height or increase the footprint of the existing residential building.  The proposal does not result in any view loss to adjoining properties.

-     The proposal includes a new east facing balcony from two bedrooms at the ground / mezzanine level.  The predominant view from these balconies is to the east and overlooking Beach Street not to adjoining residential development to the north and south.  The proposed balconies are located off bedrooms, not living areas and it is unlikely that future residents will spend considerable time in this area.  Views to the residential building to the south of the site will be partially obscured by existing and proposed landscaping.  The proposal has acceptable privacy impacts and will improve casual surveillance of Beach Street.  The proposed windows within the southern elevation of the existing building, adjoining the stairwell, have been amended to now comprise obscure glazing.

•    Non-compliance with the FSR standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

•    The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives.

•    Variation from the adherence to the FSR standard will be 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 existing covered car parking spaces and the large void space above is a highly visible area that detracts from the overall appearance of the building from the public domain.  The proposal results in an improved architectural form and will have a positive streetscape impact in terms of aesthetics and improved opportunities for casual surveillance.

 

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

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified for a period of 14 days from 10 December 2014 24 December 2014 in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·      4/16 Beach Street, Clovelly;

·      4/12 Beach Street, Clovelly;

·      1/12 Beach Street, Clovelly;

·      1/16 Beach Street, Clovelly; and

·      2/16 Beach Street, Clovelly.

 

Table 1 : Submission summary

Issues

Comments

Loss of visual privacy due to:

 

·      Raised balcony;

·      Safety – views of the park; and

·      Intensity of use

The proposal includes a new east facing balcony from two bedrooms at the mezzanine level.  The predominant view from these balconies is to the east and overlooking Beach Street not to adjoining residential development to the north and south.  The proposed balconies are also located off bedrooms, not primary living areas.  Views to the residential building to the south of the site will be partially obscured by existing and proposed landscaping.  Any overlooking will be within acceptable limits, given the site’s urban setting.  The provision of balconies overlooking Beach Street will improve casual surveillance of this area but also improve the appearance of the existing building from the public domain.  The proposal has acceptable privacy impacts and will improve casual surveillance of Beach Street.

 

Traffic hazard due to increased use of the driveway.

The proposed unit is required by Council’s planning controls to provide additional parking of 1.5 spaces, rounded up to 2 spaces.

 

The proposed increase is not considered to unreasonably increase the potential number of vehicle movement from the site in any given day. The design and layout of the site enables vehicles to enter and exit in a forward direction and maintains adequate sight lines for users. Council’s traffic engineers have not raised concern regarding the design or safety of the driveway and its use, it is therefore not considered to pose a hazard due to use.

 

Parking Impacts:

·      Loss of onsite parking will increase demand for on street parking;

·      Lack of visitor parking will contribute to on street parking demand;

·      Parking design does not comply with relevant standards.

The three (3) car spaces that are lost to accommodate the new apartment are to be relocated to the rear of the site.  An additional two (2) car spaces, required as a result of the new apartment, is also provided to the rear of the site.

 

The proposed development should not reduce the availability of on-street parking in surrounding streets.

 

The number of movements likely to be generated by the proposed development is well within the capacity of the surrounding road network and has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer as satisfactory.

 

Non-compliant floor space ratio

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) standard contained in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.  In summary, the proposal will result in a minor increase in floor space, the impact of which does not manifest in any additional overshadowing, breach in height or unacceptable privacy or traffic and parking impact.  Nor does the additional floor space alter the overall built form or scale of the existing building.  A detailed discussion is provided in section 4.1 below.

 

Noise impacts associated with relocation of parking and increase use of driveway.

The proposed development makes use of the existing driveway located along the northern side of the existing apartment building.  The provision of one additional apartment and car parking area within the rear / western portion of the site is considered unlikely to generate a level of noise that would unreasonably reduce residential amenity.

 

The proposed development does not improve the Design quality of the building.

The built form of the existing apartment building is typical of its era, with minimal articulation in building form.  The exposed ground floor parking is a dominant visual feature of the existing building and is unattractive.  The proposal will greatly improve the appearance and amenity of the building, particularly when viewed from Beach Street.  The proposal has been amended to incorporate many of the recommendations made by the Joint Randwick / Waverley Design Review, to improve the aesthetics of the proposal. The proposed development does improve the design quality of the existing building.

 

Compliance with Strata Codes

The existing building is not strata titled and there is no legal requirement for this to be undertaken.

 

·      Amenity Impacts

 

Loss of visual privacy

The proposal includes a new east facing balcony from two bedrooms at the mezzanine/first floor level.  The predominant view from these balconies is to the east and overlooking Beach Street not to adjoining residential development to the north and south.  The proposed balconies are also located off bedrooms, not living areas and it is unlikely that future residents will spend considerable time in this area.  Views to the residential building to the south of the site will be partially obscured by existing and proposed landscaping.  Consideration could be given to the provision of a privacy screen along the southern and northern edges of the east facing balconies.  However, it is not considered critical, as any overlooking to adjoining residential buildings will be within acceptable limits, given the site’s existing medium density urban setting and the provision of privacy screens would be out of character with the remainder of the existing building which does not provide screening along the edges of the balcony.  The provision of balconies overlooking Beach Street will improve casual surveillance of this area and will also significantly improve the appearance of the existing building from the public domain, which comprises exposed car parking and hardstand areas.  The proposal has acceptable privacy impacts and will improve casual surveillance of Beach Street.  The proposed windows within the southern elevation of the existing building, adjoining the stairwell, have been amended to now comprise obscure glazing.

 

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 zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under RLEP 2012 and the proposed development is permissible with development consent within the R3 zone.  The proposal involves the conversion of an unattractive undercroft area currently used for car parking to accommodate a new three (3) bedroom apartment at the front of the existing residential building, facing Beach Street.  The three (3) car spaces that are displaced by the new apartment plus two additional car spaces are proposed to be relocated to the rear of the site.  No change to the overall height, bulk and scale of the existing apartment building is proposed.

 

The existing building has a maximum FSR of 1.14:1 and currently exceeds the maximum 0.75:1 FSR development standard set out in RLEP 2012.  The existing development, as proposed to be amended, has an FSR of 1.28:1.  The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation of the FSR development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.  The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning and strict compliance to the numerical standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in this case.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to FSR, 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. 835/2014 for alterations to an existing residential building including the provision of an additional three (3) bedroom apartment, demolition, provision of five (5) car spaces within the western and rear portion of the site, landscaping and associated site works at No. 14 Beach Street, Clovelly, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Beach Street, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D40/15

 

 

Subject:                  1 Day Lane, Kensington (DA/87/2015)

Folder No:               DA/87/2015

Author:                    Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to former Kensington Bowling Club building and use as a Community Centre including two halls for community hire, a half basketball court, landscaping and add car parking for 16 vehicles

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               Randwick City Council

Owner:                    NSW Department of Lands

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview21597.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

THIS PHOTO DOES NOT INCLUDE ALL PROPERTIES WHO MADE A SUBMISSION

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as the subject site is under the care, control and management of Council, and Council is the Applicant.

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the alterations and additions to former Kensington Bowling Club building and use as a Community Centre including two halls for community hire, a half basketball court, landscaping and additional car parking for 16 vehicles

 

At its meeting on 26 November 2013, Council resolved to give its “in principle” support to the upgrade of the site to include a community centre, half basketball court, Kikoff (mini soccer fields), seniors outdoor gym and a 34 space car park, and conduct a community consultation process on the proposal (Refer to Report No. GF60/13 attached).

 

Following the community consultation process, Council considered a report at its meeting held on 22 July 2014 that summarised the outcomes of the community consultation process and made recommendations for the design of the proposal that would form part of a development application. These recommendations made some changes to the facilities to be included such as the termination of the lease for the soccer fields and maximizing the area of soft landscaping.  Council resolved to proceed to prepare and lodge a Development Application (refer to Report No. CS10/14 attached).

 

The proposal involves the alterations and additions to former Kensington Bowling Club building and use as a Community Centre including two halls for community hire, a half basketball court, landscaping and additional car parking for 16 vehicles.

 

Site

 

The site is located at 1 Day Lane, Kensington, is legally described as Lot 7112 DP 94001, and is the former Kensington Bowling Club. The site has an area of 5,727m2 and is currently used by “Kikoff”, a five-a-side soccer facility utilising one of the bowling greens as two mini soccer fields. The two greens to the north of the club building are currently unused.

 

The site is located east of Kensington Park sports ground and parklands, with the surrounding area to the north, east and south being predominantly residential development. A view of the site from Day Lane looking west is provided in Figure 1.

 

Figures 1: Subject site

 


Submissions

 

The proposal was advertised and the owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. A number of submissions were received, both in support of the proposal and objecting to aspects of the proposal. A summary of the submissions and responses to the issues raised in objection to the proposal are provided below

 

1.      Submissions

 

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

 

·      Submissions in opposition to the proposal

Address/Email

Issues

18 Snape St Kingsford

Loss of green space

Childhood obesity – kids need sporting facilities

2 Shaw Ave Kingsford

Keep Kikoff

Car park unnecessary

31 Leonard Ave Kingsford

Keep Kikoff

Car park will not satisfy community needs

146 Eastern Avenue, Kingsford

Keep Kikoff

Unit 12/102-110 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

Kids health more important than parking

4 Inglethorpe Ave Kensington

 

Need more sports facilities

Car park unnecessary

11 Edward Ave Kingsford

Support community centre

Car park should not replace soccer fields

pjones@macquarietelecom.com – A resident

 

Support green space not car parking

Keep Kikoff

15 Cottenham Ave Kensington

Redesign car park to be in shade

19 Lenthall Street, Kensington

Sports not car parking

Department of Family & Community Service

Sports not car parking

146 Eastern Avenue, Kingsford

Sports not car parking

208 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

Sports not car parking

20 Borrodale Rd Kingsford

Keep Kikoff

76 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

Sports not car parking

18 Snape Street, Kingsford

 

Loss of green space

Childhood obesity – kids need sporting facilities

Reduce car park size

Include a dog park

Kikoff - 3 Narrabeen Park Parade North Narrabeen

Retain the soccer fields – petition with 923 signature

Total objections

16 + 923 person petition from Kikoff

 

Submissions in support of proposal

 

·      278 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford – Head of Petition with 541 signatures

·      16 Goodrich Avenue, Kingsford

·      18 Goodrich Avenue, Kingsford

·      1 Leonard Avenue, Kingsford – Head of petition with 540 signatures

·      KWK Precinct Committee

·      1 Strachan Street, Kingsford

·      7 Strachan Street, Kingsford

·      9 Strachan Street, Kingsford

·      13 Strachan Street, Kingsford

·      205 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      207 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      209 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      211 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      215 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      217 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      219 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      262 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      270 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      272 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      274 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      276 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      280 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      286 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      283 Doncaster Avenue, Kingsford

·      15 Cottenham Avenue, Kensington

·      Unit 10/79 Houston Road, Kingsford

·      11 Edward Avenue, Kingsford

 

Comments on the objections raised in these submissions are provided below:

 

Issue: Loss of green space

Comment: The design of the proposal is such that there is more landscaped open space than on the existing site which comprises the bowling club, sporting fields and disused bowling greens. The proposal includes a substantial amount of soft landscaped area designed to integrate the site with Kensington Park to the west and is consistent with Council’s Resolution No.212/14.

 

Issue: Keep Kikoff soccer fields

Comment: Following the community consultation process held in early 2014 on the proposed redevelopment of the site, Council resolved at its meeting on 22 July 2014 not to renew the lease agreement for use of the soccer fields.  Therefore soccer fields are not included as part of this application.  The allocation of public recreation infrastructure to various end users is not a matter for planning assessment, but rather is a policy decision for Council. Notwithstanding, Council has advised that a tender process will commence shortly to provide for synthetic five a side soccer fields at Heffron Park.

 

Issue: Car park is unnecessary

Comment: The 16 space car park is required by the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.  The Assessment of Parking and Traffic Implications Report submitted with the application concludes, in relation to parking, that the proposed 16 spaces is an appropriate allocation having regard to surrounding residential density, bus services and future light rail service, the potential frequency and time of activities at the centre, and the availability of on-street parking in close proximity to the site.  The capacity of the proposed car park is also supported by Council’s Development Engineer subject to conditions.

 

Issue: Design of car park

Comment: The car park design is considered satisfactory and meets the relevant standards as verified by the Assessment of Parking and Traffic and Implications Report submitted with the application and as determined by the assessment of the application by Council’s Development Engineer.

 

Issue: Include a dog park

Comment: Following the community consultation process held in early 2014 on the proposed redevelopment of the site, Council resolved at its meeting on 22 July 2014 not to include an off leash area for dogs as part of the final design for the site.  This application is consistent with Council’s Resolution No.212/14.

 

Issue: Support sporting facilities not car parking

Comment: The car park is required by the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 for use by visitors to the community centre and its facilities and the recreational spaces within the site. The basketball half-court and informal recreational space and facilities are provided for use by the public.  A range of recreational activities can be conducted within the community centre halls for a variety of ages and activity levels.  The landscaped open space can be used for a variety of informal activities.

 

Currently, the Kikoff fields are fenced and access is controlled only to those people participating in soccer and only during limited hours of operation.  Comparatively, the development proposal removes fencing and allows for a variety of activities for all members of the community and in this regard facilitates active and passive recreation to a greater degree than exclusive use of the space by a single user group.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick LEP 2012

The subject site is zoned RE1 – Public Open Space under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposed development is classified as a community centre and recreation area with ancillary car parking, each of which is permissible in the zone. The relevant definitions are provided below:

 

community facility means a building or place:

 

(a)  owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation, and

(b)  used for the physical, social, cultural or intellectual development or welfare of the community,

but does not include an educational establishment, hospital, retail premises, place of public worship or residential accommodation.

 

recreation area means a place used for outdoor recreation that is normally open to the public, and includes:

 

(a)  a children’s playground, or

(b)  an area used for community sporting activities, or

(c)  a public park, reserve or garden or the like,

and any ancillary buildings, but does not include a recreation facility (indoor), recreation facility (major) or recreation facility (outdoor).

 

The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

•  To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

 

The proposed community facility, recreation area and car parking will be publicly accessible and are intended to be used for recreational purposes and open space.

 

•  To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

 

The proposal provides for a range of recreational settings and activities which are all compatible with nearby land uses including the adjoining Kensington Park and Community Nursery.  The proposed community halls are multi-functional indoor spaces suitable for recreational activities including social, education and cultural activities.  The recreation area includes cycle and walking paths and open landscaped areas for informal recreation.  The basketball half-court can be used for other hard-surface recreational activities.  All features are to be readily accessible to the public.  The use of the halls will be subject to a booking and leasing arrangement coordinated by Council.

 

•  To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

 

There are no natural features within the site with the exception of three (3) existing trees in the south west corner of the site and one small tree close to the boundary with Day Lane and within 10m from the south east corner of the site.  The three (3) trees in the south west corner of the site are proposed to be retained and protected with the development proposal.  New landscaping works include a bioretention facility and endemic species planted throughout the site which will enhance local biodiversity and improve management of water quality.

 

•  To protect, manage and restore areas with high biodiversity, ecological and aesthetic values, including buffer areas and habitat corridors.

 

The site does not have high biodiversity value or high ecological integrity.  However, new landscaping will make a positive contribution to local biodiversity and add to the quality of the landscaped public space between the community nursery and Kensington Park.  The site has aesthetic value as publicly accessible space and the proposal will further enhance the aesthetic value of the site and its setting within a broader area of publicly accessible land.

 

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.

Outcome 5:       Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities.

Direction 5a:     Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses.

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:     Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of services. 

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of the works is $4,165,700.

 

Additional costs will be incurred during the next phases of the project, including the Construction Certificate, construction and operation.  Continued financial support for the project is to be allocated through Section 94 and future Management and Operational Plans.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is consistent with the recreation and community-use precinct of Kensington Park. The proposed community halls are multi-functional indoor spaces suitable for recreational activities including social, education and cultural activities.  The recreation area includes cycle and walking paths, and open landscaped areas for informal recreation.  The basketball half-court can be used for other hard-surface recreational activities.

 

The proposal will not result in detrimental social or economic impacts on the locality with the use of the community halls to be subject to lease and hire agreements to manage the use in a manner which is compatible with the context and setting.

 

 

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/87/2015 for Alterations and additions to former Kensington Bowling Club building and use as a Community Centre including two halls for community hire, a half basketball court, landscaping and add car parking for 16 vehicles, at No. 1 Day Lane, Kensington, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

Non-standard conditions

 

Flooding

12.     The existing floor level of the building is below the level of the 1% (1 in 100yr) & 5% AEP (1 in 20y) and so will likely be inundated during major storm events. The following measures be undertaken

 

·       All new electrical outlets are to be provided at or above RL 22.45 being 300mm above 1 in 100yr flood level (1.05m above the existing floor level).

 

·       All new construction below RL 22.45 shall be made of flood compatible materials.

 

Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with these requirements.

 

Fit-out of Community Facility

18.     The fit-out of the community facility shall include elevated storage areas compatible with the likelihood of flooding of the site.  Elevated storage areas shall be provided above 22.45AHD.  Compliant storage areas are to be indicated in the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

19.     All electrical appliances are to be installed at or above 22.45AHD being 300mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level (1.05m above the existing floor level).  These details are to be indicated in the plans submitted with the Construction Certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1 Day Lane, Kensington

Included under separate cover

2.

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF60/13

Included under separate cover

3.

Director City Services Report No. CS10/14

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D41/15

 

 

Subject:                  4B Neptune Street, Coogee (DA/250/2015)

Folder No:               DA/250/2015

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Remediation and replacement of structural and termite damaged timber elements and foundations of the Caretaker’s Cottage at Wylie’s Baths (Heritage Item).

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Randwick City Council

Owner:                    NSW Department of Lands - Crown Land Division

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview67076.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to Planning Committee for determination as the development is managing and control by Randwick City Council.

Proposal

 

The application for remediation and replacement of structural and termite damaged timber elements and foundations of the Caretaker’s Cottage at Wylie’s Baths (Heritage Item).

 

Site

 

The subject development is located within Wylie’s Ocean Bath at 4B Neptune Street, Coogee, within Grant Reserve. Wylie’s Ocean Baths, as well as the Caretakers Cottage is identified as a State Heritage Listed Item (I94) and as a Local Heritage Item. The Caretaker’s Cottage, located to the south of the site was originally constructed in 1909, at the same time as the baths. Figure 1 and 2 show the location of the Caretaker’s Cottage within the Wylie’s Ocean Baths.

 

Figure 1: Aerial photograph of the Wyllie's Baths site showing the large ocean pool, elevated boardwalk and caretaker's cottage in the south-western corner of the site.

 

Figure 2: General view of the Wylie's Baths and the Caretaker's Cottage from the water.

While Wylie’s Ocean Baths have undergone a number of restoration works over the years, the Caretaker’s Cottage generally retains all of the original features. The interior appears to have remained unaltered from its original layout with most of the original fibro cement wall and timber board floor linings remaining with a number of areas with Masonite patching. The building consists of a ground floor area with kitchen, bedroom and living space and a sub-floor area accommodating bathroom/laundry and storage spaces.

 

The fabric of the building exhibits a significant level of deterioration from termite damage, with some of the ceiling linings bulging due to termite mudding and moisture damage. Whilst the overall integrity of the building is high, the building is considered to be in poor condition, as evident from the timber and structural inspection.

 

Figure 3: A detail showing the termite damaged timber on the weatherboards

Figure 4: Bathroom/laundry in sub-floor area

 

Figure 5: concrete base of building showing timber beams below floor boards

Figure 6: The sub floor area where the posts will be re-stumped to provide better stability for the site.

 

Heritage Items

As the site is listed on the State Heritage Register, the proposal needs to be the subject of an Integrated Development Application.  The NSW Heritage Council has granted an Endorsement of an Exemption under S57 (2) from the Heritage Division Office of Environment and Heritage dated 13 April 2015, under Standard Exemption no. 7 - Minor Activities with Little or No Adverse Impact on Heritage Significance.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed works are confined to the remediation of structural and termite damaged timber elements as well as foundations of the Caretaker's Cottage in order to halt any further deterioration and provide a safe, structurally sound environment for occupants.

 

The remediation works generally include:

 

General Works

·      Re-level the ground floor.

 

Perimeter Wall footing and Western wall

·      Remove loose materials and debris from the wall footings, patch repairs to eroded zones, footpath reconstruction and partial replacement of existing footing.

 

Sub floor areas

·      Inspection and drill testing to determine the extent of termite and structural damage in order to identify the extent of timber replacement.

 

Perimeter timber posts and bottom plate

·      Remove timber bottom plate on the ground, install stainless steel shoes and concrete pads on wooden posts, and anti-vermin mesh in the gap between the ground and the external lining boards.

 

Bearers, Joists and Floorboards

·      Inspect and test drill to determine the extent of damage and replacement as well as the type of rectification methods.

 

Stud framing, interior lining boards, ceiling elements, primary roof beams and rafters

·      Close-up inspection and determination of extent of replacement and treatment.

 

Lower ground slab and northern access

·      Reconstruct the retaining walls and slab on ground, drainage to be installed and ground to be re-graded to ensure stability and maintain an even fall away from the cottage.

 

Extract - Lower Ground Floor Plan

Figure 7: Extract of Lower Ground Floor Plans.

 

Extract - North & South Elevations Plan

Figure 8: Extract of North & South Elevations.

 

Extract - East Elevation Plan

Figure 9: Extract of Eastern Elevations.

 

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 with regards to the proposed development.

 

Key Issues

 

1.      NSW Heritage Act 1977

The site is listed as a State Heritage Item which usually requires approval from the NSW Heritage Council for works.  Section 57(2) enables exemptions to approvals to be given for minor activities that would not impact the heritage item or its significance.  In this case the following standard exemption is applicable:

 

·      Standard Exemption 7 – Minor Activities with little or no adverse impact on heritage significance

This application was submitted under the Standard Exemption 7, relating to minor activities, given the works are restorative only and generally in keeping with the existing development, design and character of the heritage item. Additionally, the repairs are necessary to ensure the ongoing usefulness of the Caretaker’s Cottage and Wylie’s Baths.

 

Approval of an exemption application under Section 57 has been provided by the NSW Heritage Council on 13 April 2015 and stated the following:

 

This exemption is endorsed on the basis that the works are to be undertaken in accordance with the information listed above, and that the proposed works have been assessed as having no adverse impact on the heritage values of Wylie's Baths. Please note this exemption is endorsed, subject to the following general conditions. Acceptance of these statutory conditions by the Applicant is a requirement of this exemption:

 

1.   This exemption does not allow the removal of State significant archaeological relics. If relics are discovered, work must cease in the affected area and the Heritage Council must be notified in writing in accordance with section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977. Depending on the nature of the discovery, assessment and possibly an excavation permit may be required prior to the recommencement of excavation in the affected area;

2.   If any Aboriginal objects are discovered on the site, excavation or disturbance is to cease and the Office of Environment & Heritage is to be informed in accordance with Section 91 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974; and

3.   Anything done pursuant to this exception must be specified, supervised and carried out by people with knowledge, skills and experience appropriate to the work.

 

It should be noted that this endorsed exemption covers only those proposed works described in the application. Any additional works would require a further approval. This exemption does not signify approval for any other activity on the site.

 

This information has been reflected in the conditions of consent.

 

Clause 5.10 - Heritage Overview

The site outlined in red is listed as State and local heritage item I94 in Schedule 5 of RLEP 2012, as identified in the figure below.

 

Figure 1: Extract from Heritage Map RLEP 2012.

 

Under Clause 5.10(2) any development on a heritage item requires consent for the following:

 

(a) demolishing or moving of the following or altering the exterior of any of the following (including, in the case of a building, making changes to its detail, fabric, finish or appearance):

(i) A heritage item,

(ii)  An Aboriginal object,

(iii)     A building, work, relic or tree within a heritage conservation area

Clause 5.10(4) requires that before granting consent Council must consider the effect of the proposal on the heritage significance of the item. Clause 5.10(5) provides that Council may require a heritage management document to be prepared that assesses the extent to which the proposal would affect the significance of the heritage item.

 

Assessment/Comments

2.2(vi) the design of any proposed additions or alterations must complement the existing building in its scale, form and detailing.

 

The proposed works will maintain the heritage significance of the Caretaker’s Cottage including its external form, scale and setting, and its relationship with the Baths and the Ocean.  The proposed like-for–like replacement will ensure that design details, materials, size and proportions of original timber elements will be replicated by new timber elements.

 

2.3(iv) additions must not visually dominate, compete with or conceal the original form and massing of the existing buildings.

 

The proposal is for minor restoration works which will be in keeping with the original design and form of the existing heritage item. Additionally, the Caretaker’s Cottage is located within the Wylie’s Ocean Baths and is not visible from either Neptune Street or from Grant Reserve. Therefore, it is considered that the works will not negatively impact the view to or from the heritage item.

 

Conclusion

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate design response for a Heritage Item and is unlikely to have an impact on the building’s heritage values or significance.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 6:       A Liveable City.

Direction 6a:     Our public assets are planned, managed and funded to meet the community expectations and defined levels of services.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The total project cost $182,087.

 

Conclusion

 

The application satisfactorily addresses the relevant provisions of Council’s DCP in relation to Part B2 – Heritage, subject to the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent, recommendations made by the Heritage Impact Statement. The proposed restoration works will prolong the useful life of the state and locally listed heritage item. The HIS notes that where possible materials will be replaced with like-for-like materials to ensure that the design, size and proportions are of a similar appearance to the original design.

 

The proposed works will maintain the heritage significance of the Caretaker’s Cottage including its external form, scale and setting, and its relationship with the Baths and the Ocean.  The proposed like-for–like replacement will ensure that design details, materials, size and proportions of original timber elements will be replicated by new timber elements.  The proposed remedial works will return the building fabric to a known earlier state, and will therefore comprise restoration and reconstruction in terms of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter, 2013.  The Burra Charter requires the new work should be readily identifiable on close inspection or through additional interpretation. 

 

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs.  Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No. DA/250/2015 may be supported.

 

Recommendation

 

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. 250/2015 for Remediation and replacement works of the Caretaker’s Cottage at Wylie’s Baths (Heritage Item)., at No. 4B Neptune Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

·      Works should be carried out in accordance with all of the drawings relevant to the works including all of the Remedial Works drawings (Ground Floor Remedial Works, Lower Ground Floor Remedial Works, Sections Remedial Works, Typical Details Sub-floor Posts Remedial Works, Sections Remedial Works and Typical Details Stud-Posts Remedial Works) in addition to the Measured Drawings. 

 

·      The key policy recommendations provided in the Heritage and Structural Advice report and the Heritage Impact Statement are to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed development.  An architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the implementation to ensure the use of technically sound and appropriate techniques.  All work shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and to the satisfaction of the Director City Planning.

 

Non standard advisory notes

·      Any replacement of further additional building elements (such and windows and doors) are to be the subject of a further separate development application or Section 96 application. 

 

·      This approval does not allow the removal of State significant archaeological relics. If relics are discovered, work must cease in the affected area and the Heritage Council must be notified in writing in accordance with section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977. Depending on the nature of the discovery, assessment and possibly an excavation permit may be required prior to the recommencement of excavation in the affected area.

 

·      If any Aboriginal objects are discovered on the site, excavation or disturbance is to cease and the Office of Environment & Heritage is to be informed in accordance with Section 91 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 4B Neptune Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

  


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D42/15

 

 

Subject:                  6 Conway Avenue, Randwick (DA/256/2015)

Folder No:               DA/256/2015

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and rear ground floor addition to the existing dwelling house (Heritage item).

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr N Papaiannou

Owner:                    Mr N Papaiannou & Ms G M Psaltis

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview67093.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by an external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the Applicant is related to a Council employee.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves additions and alterations to the rear of the existing residential dwelling. Works include:

Internal alterations

·     Demolition of existing internal wall between the kitchen and dining room to create open plan kitchen/dining area together with new bi fold doors opening to the rear covered area. The new doors require the removal of an existing external rear wall and window.

Bi Folds

Figure 1: Rear elevation showing new external bi fold door to access rear patio.

 

Alterations to rear additions

·     Conversion of sunroom into a laundry/study, which includes the demolition of an exterior wall and construction of new rendered wall, and reconfiguration of windows and doors.

·     Conversion laundry into a single bathroom, which includes demolition of exterior and internal dividing wall, and construction of new exterior rendered walls.

It should be noted that the external walls are not original parts of the main house and have been added on.

 

side windows

Figure 2: Southern elevation showing location of new windows and extended covered patio.

Figure 3: Internal layout showing walls to be demolished in red.

 

Patio

·      Removal of existing patio and replacement with larger covered area.

 

Site

 

The site, 6 Conway Avenue, Randwick is a single storey free standing dwelling on the eastern side of Conway Avenue. The site, known as Lot 22 DP 9253, has an area of 491.4m² and fronts Conway Avenue, with access from the street frontage to the rear of the site. The neighboring properties include single story dwellings to the north, south and east of the subject site as well as to the west across Conway Avenue.

 

The subject property is identified as locally listed heritage item I320. Schedule 5 describes the item as a pair of bungalows in conjunction with the neighbouring heritage item at number 8 Conway Road. The items are listed because they are in good condition and retain much of the original fabric.

6 Conway

Figure 4: Image of dwelling and street frontage.

 

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 regarding the development.  

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage Impacts

The proposal was assessed by Council in accordance with the Heritage provisions of RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013. The Heritage Officer’s comments are provided below:

 

Scale

The scale of the proposed development, including rebuilding of the rear additions and the covered outdoor area, are considered to be an appropriate scale as they do not dominate or compete with the existing significant heritage fabric.

 

Detail & Form

The proposed new additions utilize appropriate materials to suitably distinguish them from the original building and the windows on the reconstructed walls generally exhibit similar patterns and proportioning with the existing windows. A 200mm nib wall should be retained between the kitchen/dining room to ensure the original layout is appropriately interpreted. Although the applicant proposes to retain all decorative features, as well as both fireplaces, a condition will recommend that all original features be retained.

 

View

The proposed development is concealed behind the original building and views to and from the site will be retained.

 

Conclusion

The proposal is an appropriate design response for a Heritage Item and is unlikely to have an impact on the dwelling’s heritage values. On this basis, there are no heritage objections to the proposed addition. 

 

Assessing Officers comments:

 

·          Bulkhead in dining/kitchen

The Heritage comments suggest that a 300mm nib wall be constructed, where the wall between the dining room and kitchen is being removed. The nib wall would assist in the interpretation of the original interior design of the building.

 

At the onsite meeting it was resolved that a 200mm nib wall would be sufficient and this was agreed to by the Heritage officer. An appropriate condition has been included to reflect this outcome.

 

·          Exterior wall colours and materials

As noted in the Heritage Impact Statement the choice of exterior colours are not traditional. Conditions have been included requiring colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and be approved by Council prior to the Construction Certificate.

 

·          Interior features

The information submitted was not clear in relation to the interior detailing including fire places, skirtings, architraves and decorative ceilings.  Discussions with the applicant revealed that these features are to be retained and a condition is proposed in this regard.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject land is located within Zone R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed development involves minor alterations and additions to an existing locally listed heritage item, including the demolition and rebuilding of rear walls, internal alterations and a rear deck. The development is permissible within the zone with development consent.

 

The proposed development is considered to be of minor scale, as it is generally consistent with the existing heritage elements, will not impact views of the site and is generally rebuilding existing additions. Further the applicant has taken into consideration Council’s Heritage comments to retain existing elements and features.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs.  Following a detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No. DA/256/2015 should be supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA256/2015 for alterations and additions to a heritage item, at No. 6 Conway 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 layout of the proposed kitchen/ dining area is to incorporate 200mm nib walls and beams projecting below ceiling level, as evidence of the original layout of the building.

 

Heritage

3.       All original decorative ceilings, timber architraves, skirting boards, plate/picture rails and fireplaces are to be retained.

 

4.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing building.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e.- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

5.       Details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  Unpainted surfaces, e.g. brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted, and no applied finishes are to be used.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 6 Conway Avenue, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D43/15

 

 

Subject:                  408 Malabar Road, Maroubra (DA/1053/2010/A)

Folder No:               DA/1053/2010/A

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the size of the garage and rumpus room and altering the roof design.

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Tim Mitchell and Penelope Wright

Owner:                    Time Mitchell and Penelope Wright

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

eview67542

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by Council.

 

 

1.       Proposal

 

The subject proposal seeks to make the following modifications:

·          Modification of the roof form from a gabled roof to a pitched roof; and

·          Extension of the garage and rumpus rooms to the north and south boundaries.

 

The original development for demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new garage with rumpus room at lower ground floor level (SEPP 1 Objection for FSR) was determined by the Planning Committee Meeting 10 May 2011.

 

Image 1: Rear of subject site. Existing garage to be demolished.

 

2.       Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Malabar Road between Maroubra Road and Nicol Avenue and is presently occupied by an existing two storey semi-detached dwelling house and rear garage facing Nicol Lane. The subject site has a frontage width of 8.595, a depth of 4.87m to the southern side boundary and 45.54m to the northern side boundary; with a total land area of 398m2.

 

The surrounding area is predominately residential in character and contains a mixture of single and two storey attached and detached dwelling houses. The development along Nicol Lane is predominately garage development.

 

3.       Submissions

 

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

 

4.     Section 96 Amendment

 

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

 

4.1           Substantially the Same Development:

In accordance with Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, the proposed modifications are not considered to result in a development that will fundamentally alter that originally approved. As such, the development will remain substantially the same as the originally approved development and is eligible for assessment under Section 96 of the Act.

 

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

 

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

 

5.       Technical Officers Comments

 

Given the minor nature of the proposed modifications no referrals were required.

 

6.       Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

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

a.     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

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

 

Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio

The subject site contains a maximum floor space ratio of 0.75:1 under the RLEP 2012. The proposed modifications result in an FSR of 0.781:1, a non-compliance of 0.081 or 11.5sqm.

 

The approved FSR currently exceeds the maximum, at 0.754:1. Given the topography of the property, the proposal is significantly excavated and presents as a single storey garage from Nicol Lane. The additional floor area is not considered to have any significant impact upon the amenity of adjoining premises in terms of visual bulk, privacy and overshadowing; and is consistent with the built form of existing development and the future desired character of Nicol Lane.

 

7.1     Policy Controls

 

a.       Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

Low Density Residential C1: Section 8.1 Development in Laneways

The laneway development controls seek to ensure that ancillary development has a massing secondary to the primary dwelling, are an appropriate scale and width for the laneway and promote casual surveillance and safety within laneways. 

 

The subject modification application seeks to increase the width of the approved laneway development to the boundary and modify the roof form from a gabled roof to a pitched roof form. The development will be a maximum height of 3.85m as measured from the existing ground level with a maximum wall height of 3.6m as measured from the existing ground level; complying with the numerical controls which allow a maximum overall height of 6m and wall height of 4.5m. The amendments still results in a development that reads as single storey from the laneway; however as this element is the garage, windows have not been provided. The existing primary dwelling onsite contains a first floor addition which provides some passive surveillance of the laneway, whilst a nearby residential flat building provides good surveillance. It is considered that the proposed development will still facilitate reasonable levels of passive surveillance to the laneway.

 

The nil setback proposed to both boundaries is consistent with existing development with numerous examples of old and recent garages constructed to the boundaries. The proposal is not considered to result in any unreasonable visual bulk to the adjoining sites.

 

As the proposed development complies with Council’s controls for laneways and is characteristic of development within the laneway, the built form of the laneway development is considered acceptable.    

 

Images 2-5 : Existing laneway development

 

Section 4.6 Earthworks

The proposed extension of the approved garage and rumpus room result in additional excavation to the boundary. The excavation proposed exceeds the maximum allowable under the controls. Notwithstanding, the additional excavation proposed achieves the objectives of the control in that the development will not result in unreasonable visual, overshadowing or privacy impacts to adjoining sites, usable private open space is retained and adequate stormwater filtration is retained onsite.

 

Further, appropriate conditions of consent requiring a dilapidation report and support for adjoining land and buildings were included within the original consent to ensure that the proposed excavation will not impact the adjoining sites. Accordingly, the additional excavation is considered acceptable.

 

8.   Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Refer to section 6: Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments.

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

Not applicable

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

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

The subject application was not required to be notified. 

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

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

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 as well as the heads of consideration under section 79C of the EP&A Act 1979 (as amended). The proposed modifications are minor and will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties or the character of the streetscape and are substantially the same as the approved development. For these reasons, the subject application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

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. 1053/2010/A to increase the size of the garage and rumpus room and alter the roof design at No. 408 Malabar Road, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions contained in this report:

Amend Condition 1 to read:

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

       

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

1 of 7 (Issue B)

-

10/03/2011

11 March 2011

2 of 7 (Issue B)

-

10/03/2011

11 March 2011

3 of 7 (Issue B)

-

10/03/2011

11 March 2011

4 of 7 (Issue B)

-

10/03/2011

11 March 2011

5 of 7 (Issue B)

-

10/03/2011

11 March 2011

6 of 7 (Issue B)

-

10/03/2011

11 March 2011

7 of 7 (Issue B)

-

10/03/2011

11 March 2011

Except as amended by the Section 96 ‘A’ plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

1 of 7 (Issue A)

-

23/10/2014

6 February 2015

2 of 7 (Issue A)

-

23/10/2014

6 February 2015

3 of 7 (Issue A)

-

23/10/2014

6 February 2015

4 of 7 (Issue A)

-

23/10/2014

6 February 2015

5 of 7 (Issue A)

-

23/10/2014

6 February 2015

6 of 7 (Issue A)

-

23/10/2014

6 February 2015

7 of 7 (Issue A)

-

23/10/2014

6 February 2015

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D44/15

 

 

Subject:                  79 Denning Street, South Coogee (DA/127/2015)

Folder No:               DA/127/2015

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and new upper level addition to the existing dwelling house (variation to building height control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mathew Lawrance and Dianne Macalpine

Owner:                    Mathew Lawrance and Dianne Macalpine

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview36039.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

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

Proposal

The proposal is for alterations and construction of a new upper level addition to the existing dwelling house containing a master bedroom with ensuite.  The proposal also includes the provision of a spa within the existing pool area.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 25 May 2015 in response to the request made by Council to verify the correct RL and maximum building height.  The following amendments were made:

 

·       The length of wall to the rear is reduced by approximately 1000mm which reduces the overall wall height;

·          The location of external wall to stair façade is slightly amended; and

·       Survey information, elevations and sections have been amended to reflect the correct existing levels on the site.

Site

 

The site is described as Lot 1 in DP 1081, known as 79 Denning Street, South Coogeey. The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential and is located in a prescribed Foreshore scenic protection area.  The site is restricted to 9.5 metres in height and 0.75:1 in floor space. 

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Denning Street adjacent to the corner of Malabar Road and Cuzco Street and is presently occupied by an existing part two/part three storey dwelling house, presenting two storey to Denning Street and three storeys to the rear yard area.  The site has a frontage width of 12.19m, a side boundary depth of 36.575m and has an overall site area of 449m².  The site falls steeply from the street frontage with a difference in levels of up to 7m. 

 

The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of dwelling houses comprising mainly detached dwelling houses and dual occupancies with more recent and modern contemporary houses being large scale in nature. There are older style apartment buildings and commercial development with shoptop housing on the opposite side of Denning Street to the subject site facing Malabar Road.

 

The older buildings in the neighbourhood are characterised by three storey residential flat buildings; two storey retail with shoptop housing; two/three storey dwelling houses and a more limited number of dwelling houses presenting one storey to Denning Street and two-three storeys to the rear.  The older style developments in the locality are being replaced by contemporary dwelling houses generally of a three

Storey scale.

Figure 1: Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions

 

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

 

81 Denning Street, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

Overshadowing and solar access concerns in relation to their front west facing bedroom window.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses solar access and overshadowing.

 

Key Issues

 

Request to vary development standards

 

Clause 4.3 - Height of buildings

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

 

The maximum building height of the development has been calculated from the basement level (being the ground level) which results in the proposed development having a maximum height of 12.043m at its highest point; breaching the 9.5 metre height standard in the Randwick LEP 2012 by 2.543m.

 

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

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

9.5m

Existing Building height

11.75m (South elevation to rear of dwelling)

Proposed Building height

12.043m (to underside of basement level)

Excess above RLEP Standard

26.77% (or 2.543m)

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

The proposal is to construct a master bedroom occupying part of the level above the main living area. The proposed master bedroom is designed to fit seamlessly with the contemporary form of the main part of the dwelling house and will maintains the established part-two/part-three storey scale of the original dwelling which accommodates the steep fall of the site.

 

The need for the proposed development arises from the increasing age of the children of the owner of the residence, who will be continuing to reside in the dwelling, and also due to the needs of the owner of the residence to accommodate one of their parents on a regular basis.

 

The current layout of the dwelling house has a basement level rumpus room; four bedrooms and a garage at the ground floor level; and the main living area at the first floor level. The approved development is of a part-two and part- three storey scale due to the steeply sloping nature of the site. The proposed development maintains part-two, part-three storey scale by locating the proposed development above that part of the site that comprises two storeys.

 

The configuration of bedrooms all at the one level is non-conducive to proper levels of privacy for the owners of the residence. That room configuration was appropriate at the time that the dwelling house was constructed, in the mid-2000s, when the owner’s children were considerably younger. Now that the owner’s children are entering adulthood, the need arises for the parents to have a master bedroom that is separated from the other bedrooms. The owners of the property have therefore commissioned the present design.

 

In commissioning the design to accommodate the master bedroom, the owners of the property have sought to ensure that the design is oriented so as not to interfere with the amenity of surrounding properties in terms of solar access to their rear yard areas and in terms of visual privacy. At the same time, the owners of the property have sought for the design to be within a form that does not create the appearance of an additional storey from the primary street. Notwithstanding that the adjoining development being constructed at 81 Denning Street to the south will have a two storey plus basement garage level presenting to the street, the proposed development will ensure that the dwelling house retains the appearance of a two storeys dwelling when viewed from the primary street - through the enclosure of the addition within a wall of 1.7 metres in height above the existing roof level at the street and set back 2.0 metres from the front wall.

 

The proposed addition would be located as follows:

 

 

·     front wall set back 2.0 metres rearwards of the existing front wall, with a minimum street setback from the street of 5.4 metres. The front wall setback from ;

·     continuation of existing stairwell to the proposed master bedroom level, with the stairwell set back one metre from the northern side boundary;

·     the southern side wall would be stepped back 0.9 metres from the existing southern wall, being 1.8 metres from the southern side boundary; and

·     the eastern (rear) wall would be set well back from the eastern (rear) wall of the level below.

 

Clause 4.3 of RLEP2012 relates to the height of buildings and provides as follows:

 

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

 

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

(b) to ensure that 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.

 

(2) The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

 

(2A) Despite subclause (2) the maximum height of a dwelling house or semi-detached dwelling on land in zone R3.

 

The Height of Buildings Map shows that the applicable height limit to the subject site and to its locality is 9.5 metres. It is noted that that height is to be measured to the highest part of the building and that “ground level (existing)” means the existing level of a site at any one point. There is the potential for some uncertainty about how the excavated area within the footprint of an existing building is to be measured.

However, it is conservatively assumed that the level to the underside of a basement slab is taken to be the “ground level (existing)”.

 

The height of the proposed building relative to the underside of the basement level slab is 12.043 metres. However, that height is relative to the basement which has historically been excavated well below the natural ground levels at the sides of the building.

 

Figure 1: Section of the building as proposed with levels

 

At the sides of the buildings, where the natural ground levels are relevant to how the building is perceived from surrounding properties, the maximum height of the building is a maximum of 10.433 metres relative to the ground level (existing) within the southern side setback area and 10.889 metres relative to the ground level (existing) within the northern side setback area (Figures 2 and 3).

 

Figure 2: Diagram illustrating the height of the proposed development in the northern elevation

 

 

Figure 3: Diagram illustrating the height of the proposed development in the southern elevation

 

As illustrated in Figure 2 above, the proposed height above 9.5 metres visible in the southern elevation has a depth (i.e. as measured along the line of the side boundaries) of 1.3 metres. As illustrated in Figure 3 above, the proposed height above 9.5 metres visible in the northern elevation has a depth (i.e. as measured along the line of the side boundaries) of 2.3 metres.

 

The non-compliance arises from the sudden fall in the land levels that occurs at that point, and relates only to the extent to which the proposed addition protrudes marginally rearwards of that point.

 

Why compliance is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case

 

Chief Justice Preston establishes a five part test for consideration of a proposed variation. Consideration of the proposal having regard to that test provides a framework for evaluation of the presently proposed variation.

 

1. Is the planning control in question a development standard?

In this case there is no doubt that the height of buildings control is a development standard.

 

2. If so, what is the underlying object or purpose of the standard?

The underlying object, or purpose, of the standard is explicitly stated in the objectives of clause 4.3 set out in clause 4.3(1).

 

Consideration of the proposal in relation to the clause 4.3(1) objectives is as follows:

 

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

 

Comment: The locality is characterised by a mix of substantial dwelling houses and older style apartment buildings as well as commercial development with shoptop housing on the opposite side of Denning Street to the subject site.

The older buildings in the neighbourhood are characterised by three storey residential flat buildings; two storey retail with shop-top housing; two-three storey brick dwelling houses; and a more limited number of dwelling houses presenting one storey to Denning Street and two-three storeys to the rear. The older style developments in the locality are being replaced by contemporary dwelling houses generally of a three storey scale.

 

The approved development at 81 Denning Street immediately to the south of the subject site, which has a zero lot line to the common boundary to the subject site, has a ridgeline of RL58.29 which is 1130mm higher than the proposed roof at the street line. The nil side setback parapet of that development along the common boundary with the subject site will have a level of RL56.30, which compares to the existing parapet of the subject dwelling house of RL55.03.

 

The adjoining dwelling to the north of the subject site is of a single storey scale- however the adjoining dwelling to the north of that, at 75 Denning Street, has a ridgeline of RL57.85, and that ridgeline is set closer to the street than the proposed upper level roof form at the street line. That ridgeline is 690mm higher than the proposed upper level roof form at the street line.

 

The maximum height of the proposed development would be 10.433 metres based upon the lowest level in line with the proposed development within the southern elevation and 10.889 metres based upon the lowest level in line with the proposed development within the northern elevation.

 

Having regard to the levels of developments in immediate proximity to the site, the proposed development must be regarded as being compatible with those levels. That compatibility is even clearer when the nil side setback of the development at 81 Denning Street is taken into consideration. The neighbourhood within which the subject site is located is characterised by developments having generally a two-three storey scale in presentation to the primary street. Those developments are summarised in Table 1 below. That table focuses on developments in Denning Street. From that table it is evident that there are multiple dwelling houses and apartment buildings/shoptop housing in the locality with a two to three storey scale in presentation to the primary road.

 

Developments further along Denning Street on the western side include five recently constructed dwellings (including an attached pair) that have a three storey presentation to the primary street, three of which are raised an additional level to the level of the street due to site topography, and presenting nil setback double garages to Denning Street. Those properties include 66-72 Denning Street (Figure 11) and 78-80 Denning Street (Figure 12). Those properties are between 122 and 191 metres from the subject site and are part of the same neighbourhood.

 

It is also noted that developments along Cuzco Street in immediate proximity to the site have been recently approved with a two-three storey scale in presentation to their primary road (Cuzco Street). From that context, it is very clear that the presentation of a three storey scale to the primary road in the locality is not uncommon. It is also very clear that the scale of the proposed development is lower than the scale of approved 81 Denning Street and other developments on the southern side of Denning Street in immediate proximity to the site.

 

The proposed master bedroom level is designed to maintain the general appearance of a two storey scale when viewed from the primary road. That is achieved by:

 

·     Setting the proposed master bedroom level two metres rearwards of the front building line of the existing building, so that it appears stepped back;

·     Raking the ceiling at the front of the proposed master bedroom level so that it has an external wall height in presentation to the street of only 1.7 metres. The proposed roof then extends at a shallow pitch rearward of the front wall, so that it will not be generally discernible from the street;

·     Avoiding the inclusion of any wall openings in the street-facing facade, so that the perception of the area as a habitable level is avoided; and

·     By using visually lightweight materials that blend in with the colours and style of the existing dwelling house, so that the master bedroom level will not be obtrusive.

 

The appearance of the building from the street is illustrated in the submitted photomontages, such as is reproduced in Figure 4.

 

Figure 4: Photomontage of the proposed development, showing the form of the development at 81 Denning Street (to the right) which is yet to be completed.

The submitted photomontages illustrate the compatibility of the development in its streetscape context.

 

The proposal therefore satisfies objective (a).

 

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

 

There are no nearby heritage items and the site is not within a conservation area.

 

(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 design of the proposal orients the addition as close to the primary street as possible whilst providing a sufficient street setback to reduce the perceived scale of the proposed addition. The proposal has been designed in that manner in order to locate the addition as far as practicable from the rear yard zones of adjoining properties.

 

The proposed setback of 8.7 metres from the existing rear upper level wall results in the proposed addition having no discernible presentation to adjoining rear yard areas. The proposed rear-facing windows will have no privacy impact to those rear yard areas because overlooking will be blocked by the lower levels of the existing dwelling house.

 

In relation to privacy impacts to the sides of adjoining dwellings, it is noted that the adjoining dwelling house to the north of the subject site, at 77 Denning Street, has some windows facing south that are partially overlooked from the rear first level deck of the existing dwelling house (Figure 5). The rear verandah of 77 Denning Street is also partially overlooked. Those existing overlooking impacts are acceptable because they do not arise with the normal use of the deck and are of a limited degree.

 

The proposed development would not have side-facing windows, including no windows to the northern side. Furthermore, the proposal includes a bathroom on the northern side sitting proud of the rear wall that will therefore prevent any overlooking from the rear windows. The bathroom window will not cause a loss of privacy by virtue of its use. Furthermore, the bathroom wall will be setback 2500mm from the northern side boundary. As such, there will be no loss of privacy to 77 Denning Street caused by the proposed addition.

 

Figure 5: 77 Denning Street viewed from rear first floor level deck of the subject dwelling house

 

In relation to privacy impacts to the side of 81 Denning Street, it is noted that approved dwelling under construction has a nil setback wall to the common boundary to the subject site. There will be a lightwell opening within that wall which will be roofed - that opening will be in line with the proposed upper level addition which will have a blank wall to its southern side. Therefore, there is no potential loss of privacy to that opening caused by the proposed addition.

 

In relation to solar access, the proposed development is due north of 81 Denning Street. The only relevant consideration, given the nil side setback wall of that development, is whether there would be any overshadowing into the lightwell opening of that development. In that regard, the shadow diagrams accompanying the application demonstrate that there would be no additional overshadowing caused to that lightwell opening. The proposal does not include any decking or the like and causes no potential acoustic impacts to surrounding properties.

 

In relation to view impacts, as set out in the accompanying view analysis report, the proposed development does not cause any loss of ocean view from the first floor level deck at 199-203a Malabar Road. There are no other view impacts associated with the proposed development.

 

Having regard to the foregoing, the proposal protects the amenity of surrounding residents and achieves the zone objectives. Having regard to the foregoing, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the standard.

 

Is compliance with the standard consistent with the aims of the policy, and in particular does compliance with the standard tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in 5(a)(i) and (ii) of the Act?

The relevant objects of the Act may be summarised as relating to the proper management of urban resources and the orderly and economic development of land.

Given the scale of surrounding development and the acceptable impacts of the proposal in terms of streetscape and amenity, the proposed development is clearly within reasonable expectations notwithstanding the proposed noncompliance.

 

At the same time, the proposed development optimises the provision of residential accommodation on the site because it facilitates the continued occupation of the dwelling house by the current residents whilst also accommodate adult children and an elderly parent of one of the owners.

 

A requirement for strict compliance would represent a disorderly and irregular outcome given that the proposal is consistent with the scale of other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood. The proposed non-compliance occurs within the area of the site where there land falls suddenly away and is limited to a small area where the proposed master-bedroom would extend rearwards of that part of the site. Furthermore, the subject site has not been developed to its full potential under the floor space ratio control, whereas the proposed development results in 315.99 square metres of gross floor area, whereas a maximum of 337 square metres is permitted. In that circumstance, and in a circumstance in which dwelling houses in the neighbourhood generally are of an equal or greater scale than the scale of the proposed development, the proposed amount of development is reasonable. A requirement for strict compliance would restrict the site to being significantly underdeveloped compared to its allowable density or would lead to alternative design options that do not achieve the reasonable objectives of the current occupants in commissioning the current design.

 

Therefore, a requirement to comply with the development standard would tend to hinder the attainment of the objects specified in 5(a) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

 

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

Compliance would be unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed development has a lower level than the adjoining development that has been recently approved at 81 Denning Street, and that development has a nil side setback from the subject site. It would be unreasonable to restrict the proposed development, which has a 1.815 metre southern side setback and which has a lower scale than that recently approved development;

 

·     Many older established developments as well as new developments within the neighbourhood generally are of a two-three storey scale in presentation to the primary street and it would be unreasonable to refuse the proposed development on the grounds of its scale to the primary street in those circumstances - noting also that the proposal is compliant at its street frontage;

 

·     The extent of the proposed non-compliance is very limited - being limited to up to a 1.76 metre depth in elevation, and the impact of that part of the proposed building being non-compliance is acceptable. That impact is acceptable in relation to streetscape impacts because the front of the building is compliant and has a reduced scale through raking of the ceiling at the front. That impact is also acceptable from the street because it is stepped back from the street so that the vertical scale of the proposal is reduced. That impact is acceptable in relation to amenity impacts because it is set well forward of the rear building line and therefore does not overlook or overshadow adjoining properties to the rear. There are no other unacceptable amenity impacts of the proposal as set out elsewhere in this submission;

 

·     The proposal does not cause unacceptable streetscape or amenity impacts;

 

·     There are no reasonable design alternatives that would comply whilst providing the required accommodation; and

 

·     The proposed development would have a gross floor area that is substantially less than the maximum permissible gross floor area. Whilst the maximum permissible gross floor area is not necessarily “as of right” - the scale of other developments in the locality lead to the achievement of a gross floor area that at least approaches the maximum permissible is a reasonable expectation.

 

Environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard

Upon consideration of the above matters, Chief Justice Preston provides evaluation criteria that may result in an objection (in this case a clause 4.6 variation) being upheld. Not all of the criteria must be satisfied. Consideration of the proposal having regard to those criteria is as follows:

 

1. The objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding noncompliance with the standard.

 

As set out above, the proposed development achieves the objectives of the standard in that the proposed development:

 

·     Is compatible with the desired future character of the local area in terms of its bulk, form and scale. The proposal has a lower overall height than the adjoining development at 81 Denning Street and a lower scale than numerous of the dwelling houses in the surrounding neighbourhood; and

 

·     The development does not cause unacceptable amenity impacts to surrounding properties.

 

The proposal therefore achieves the objectives of the development standard and therefore satisfies the criterion.

 

2. The underlying objective or purpose of the standard is not relevant to the development and therefore compliance is unnecessary.

 

This criterion is not relevant to the present consideration.

 

3. The underlying object or purposes would be defeated or thwarted if compliance was required and therefore compliance is unreasonable.

 

This criterion is not relevant to the present consideration. A development that complied with the standard could achieve the underlying objectives of the standard, but would not fully achieve the zone objectives because it would underutilise scarce urban land resources.

 

4. The development standard has been virtually abandoned or destroyed by the Council’s own actions in granting consent departing from the standard and hence compliance with the standard is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

There are other examples of non-compliances with the height standard that have been approved in the surrounding locality. However, it is not the intent of this submission to demonstrate that the standard has been abandoned or destroyed. The standard has served a purpose in the design of the proposed development in that it has resulted in the designer of the proposed development seeking to minimise the spatial extent of the proposed noncompliance.

 

Although the standard is not fully achieved, the substantial proportion of the dwelling house will comply and the extent of non-compliance is limited to only a maximum 1.8 metre deep area where viewed in elevation - the elevations being the relevant vantage point because they relate to how the building would be perceived (i.e. the parts of the building that are above natural ground levels).

 

Therefore, criterion 4 is not of particular relevance to the present proposal.

 

5. The zoning of the particular land is unreasonable or inappropriate.

 

That criterion is not relevant to the present proposal.

 

Upon the above grounds, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the criteria for the proposed variation to be supported, because the objectives of the standard are achieved notwithstanding the proposed non-compliance.

 

Conclusion

The proposed exception to clause 4.3(2) of RLEP2012 is justified having regard to the matters set out in clause 4.6(3) of that instrument.

 

Planner’s comments

The maximum building height of the development has been calculated from the basement level (being the ground level) which results in the proposed development having a maximum height of 12.043m at its highest point; breaching the 9.5 metre height standard in the Randwick LEP 2012.  The building height has been measured from the lowest level at the underside of the slab to the highest point of the building.

The applicant has argued, however, that the height of the building relative to actual ground levels outside the building would be the relevant perceived scale of the proposed dwelling comparative to the streetscape and surrounds.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The existing building does not occupy the whole of the site, and therefore, given the LEP definition, the ‘ground level’ would be ground level below finished basement level as well as the soil/garden/paved area around the building. This is pertinent because if the height of the proposed development was measured from the existing ground level surrounding the building, the non-compliance to the maximum building height of the proposal (outside of the basement area) would not be as excessive being 10.889m to the northern elevation and 10.433m to the southern elevation.  As such, there should be some consideration given to the relationship of the proposed building to its context.  In terms of a merit assessment, the determination of the ground level should be based on its relationship to the overall topography that includes the site and its context and not to the aberrations in height that exist across a site as a result of significant cut and fill which currently exists to the rear of the site.

 

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

 

·       The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape and in the immediate locality. The proposed second floor level will be consistent in height with the neighbouring dwelling at no. 81 Denning Street which has an RL of 58.290.  As a result, when viewed from the streetscape, the proposed development whilst reads as a 3 storey building does not appear as a dominating element in the streetscape and the front façade will meet the 9.5m maximum height of building control. Also, as demonstrated in figures 2 & 3 above the non-compliant sections are limited to the rear section of the addition where the site steps down due to the significant fall of the land.

 

·       The second floor addition is not highly visible from the rear of the dwelling due to the considerable fall of the land towards the rear. It is also partially hidden by the existing roof pitch and is located closer to the front section of the dwelling. Therefore when viewed from the rear, the dwelling continues to read as a three storey building which is consistent with height and built form of neigbouring and surrounding development.  Refer to photomontage in figure 5 to 7.

 

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

 

·       The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the DCP solar access requirements to adjoining properties.  There are no north facing windows that will be impacted by the proposed development and the additional shadow impacts to the private open spaces of the neighbouring properties are very minor. On this basis, the additional over shadowing created by the proposed development is considered acceptable in the circumstances of this case.

 

·       The FSR proposed on the site complies with the control standard in the LEP and does not appear as a dominating element.  The scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling is consistent with other development along Denning Street, and in the immediate locality as demonstrated in figures 5 & 6.

 

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

 

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

 

Figure 5: Photomontage of proposed Streetscape along Denning Street    Figure 6: Approved development

      at No. 83 Denning Street under

      DA/896/2014

 

Figure 7: Existing dwelling house on the subject

site as viewed from the rear yard area

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·       To protect the amenity of residents.

·       To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The amended proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing built environment and will not result in unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP)

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Hence, where a DA does not comply with a control, Council must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternatives. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

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

 

Sub-section 3.2 - Building Height

The proposal has a maximum wall height of 10.889m to the northern elevation, which varies from the control of 8m for sloping sites. Refer to figure 8 below. Notwithstanding this variation, the proposal will satisfy the corresponding objectives and control requirements in that:

 

§ The proposed maximum wall height is commensurate with the maximum height of the existing building so that it will not appear as an overbearing or unreasonable increase in height over the existing development. 

 

§ The proposal will relate to the height of buildings in the surrounding streetscape and context, including the adjoining northern dwelling at No. 81 Denning Street, also at Nos. 78 and 80 Denning Street and higher 4 storey buildings on Denning Street at No. 70 and 72 Denning Street.

 

§ The proposal will not appear as intrusive or dominant compared with adjoining and neighbouring properties when viewed in the context of existing development in the street.  Refer to Figures 5 to 7 above.

 

§ The proposal has been designed and sited on-site to have minimal and acceptable impacts on adjoining properties in terms of view loss, privacy and overshadowing.

 

Figure 8: Northern elevation indicating the maximum wall height of the proposed development from the existing ground level.

 

Sub-section 3.3 - Setbacks

 

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

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

 

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

    

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

 

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

-    The need to achieve reasonable view sharing with the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

-    The need to adequately protect the privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

Sub-section 3.3.2 - Side setbacks

 

Controls

 

i)      Comply with the minimum side setbacks as follows:

 

Dwelling Houses & Dual Occupancies

(Attached & Detached)

 

Frontage width

Ground storey

First storey

Second storey & above

12m and above

1200mm

1200mm

1800mm

 

The site has a frontage width of 12.19m to Denning Street and the upper level addition will result in the dwelling to be three storeys in height. The side setback control requires the second floor level to be setback 1.8m from the side boundaries. 

 

The proposed second floor addition has varied side setbacks and is within the main building footprint. To the southern side the second storey addition is setback 1.815m from the boundary which complies with the control.  However, to the northern side the second storey addition is setback at least 1.05m from the boundary for a distance of 3.53m not meeting the control.  The setback varies to this side of the boundary, to the front section the addition is setback 2.52m and spans for a distance of 420mm and the rear section is setback 2.35m and spans for a distance of 910mm which complies with the control. 

 

The non-compliant section of the wall is considered acceptable as the proposed setback does not eventuate in any unreasonable impacts of bulk and scale and relates to the side setbacks of other dwellings in the street.  The north elevation has been appropriately articulated and modulated which create visual interest and enhances the streetscape. 

 

The setback enables an acceptable building separation within the built form context of the site and acceptable privacy and solar access to be retained to the adjoining sites.  When considered on balance with a compliant scheme, there are minimal additional environmental impacts resulting from the proposed setback variation.

 

The northern side setback does not contribute to any additional overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring property at no. 77 Denning Street. The additional overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring property at no. 81 Denning Street is minimal and to this side the second floor addition is setback at least 1.8m which complies with the control.

 

In addition to the above, the proposed development complies with the maximum FSR control and meets the objectives of the control relating to height building standards under the LEP 2012.  The development also meets the objectives for external wall height control in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

The design of the proposed side elevations is considered to have minimised environmental impacts and are reasonable within regard to the context of the site.

 

Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

Objectives

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

 

Solar access to proposed development:

i)   A portion of the north-facing living area windows of proposed development must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (in so far as it does not contradict any BASIX requirements).

 

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

 


Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that solar access to the principal outdoor recreation space to the rear yards on the subject and neighbouring sites are already compromised by the existing and surrounding dwellings between Midday to 4pm on 21 June.  However, the proposed development will not be significantly reducing this amount.  Only a very small section of the yard (to the far rear) in the later afternoon at no.’s 81 Denning Street and 6 Cuzco Street will be impacted by the proposed development.  More importantly the DCP only requires the subject and neighbouring sites to receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June and this is still achieved in the morning between 8am to Midday on 21 June.

 

An objection was received from the neighbouring dwelling at no. 81 Denning Street in relation to solar access and overshadowing impacts to their front bedroom window.

 

There is no north facing windows that adjoins the subject site. The window in question is west facing.  The applicant has provided a shadow diagram demonstrating that the shadow cast by the proposed development will not impact this window.  Figure 8 below demonstrates that this window is already overshadowed by existing shadows casted by the roof overhang of the objector’s property at no. 81 Denning Street.

 

In addition to the above, the second floor addition to the southern side complies with the setback controls in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

Further, the proposed development complies with the maximum FSR control and meets the objectives of the control relating to height building standards under the LEP 2012.  The development also meets the objectives for external wall height control in the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

Furthermore, the development will not impact on any future solar collectors and therefore, the application is considered to be acceptable in this regard given general compliance with the DCP controls.

 

Figure 8: Shadow Diagram - 8am June 21

 

Sub-section 5.6 - View Sharing

 

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted.

 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Council’s Dwellings Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

An assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views is carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140.

 

The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. No submissions have been received in relation to view loss. However, the property directly opposite the subject site at Unit 7/199-303A Malabar Road which faces Denning Street has been investigated to determine if the proposal resulted in any view loss impacts.  The property at Unit 2/214 Malabar Street was also investigated, however; the site inspection was undertaken for another development application at no. 83 Denning Street. The photo has also been used for the assessment of this application.

 

The properties in question are identified in yellow and directions ‘A’ & ‘B’, in Figure 9 below indicates the views are obtained in a north easterly and south easterly direction across of the South Pacific Ocean.  Majority of the views are blocked by existing development and vegetation. There are no iconic views that will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Figure 9: Site analysis plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

Unit 7 obtains very minor views in a standing position from the rear living room and off the rear balcony on the first floor level of the existing shop top housing apartment. The views are very limited and are glimpse corridor views in between the subject property and over the roof top of neighbouring properties to the south east of the site as identified in directions ‘A’ & ‘B’.   The views to the south east are obscured by existing vegetation and only can be obtained when located to the north eastern corner of the balcony.  The approved development at no. 83 Denning Street will further reduce these views.

 

As demonstrated in figure 10 below the existing dwelling on the subject site, neigbouring dwelling at no. 81 Denning and dwellings further to the north east of the subject site currently block out the ocean views.  The photo demonstrates that the proposed development will not be impacting the existing glimpse corridor views. 

 

Figure 10: View taken from the balcony on the first floor level of Unit 7/199-303A Malabar Road in an easterly direction.

 

The east facing properties along Malabar Road which are directly opposite the subject site (shown in yellow dashed line in figure 9) are currently obscured by the properties that face west of Malabar Road with the exception of the upper most unit at no. 202 Malabar Road which may retain majority of their existing views above the roof top of the subject and neighbouring dwellings to the east.  However, the corridor views along Cuzco Street from the eastern facing windows on the first floor level along Malabar Road will be maintained.  Refer to figure 11 which demonstrates that the existing dwellings at no.’s 79 and 81 Denning Street current block out the ocean views.

 

Figure 11: View taken from the first floor level of Unit 2/214 Malabar Street in an easterly direction

 

Based on the above analysis, it is anticipated that the proposed development will not result in any material impact on the scenic views currently available to the dwellings at Unit 7/199-303A Malabar Road, Unit 2/214 Malabar Street and properties shown dashed in yellow, which is situated on the western side of Malabar Road at the intersection of Denning and Cuzco Streets directly opposite to the subject site. The views currently enjoyed from these properties will be retained.

 

The proposed development complies with the LEP numerical controls in relation to FSR. Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design.

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is located within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012.The proposed development seeks to vary the building height standard under Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012. The proposed development has merit and is considered to compatible with the height, bulk and scale of other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood. Relevant controls and objectives within Randwick DCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts have been assessed as being acceptable. 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 proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of solar access, view loss and privacy. An adequate level of amenity will be retained for the surrounding residents and the public domain.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.3(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/127/2015 for alterations and new upper level addition to the existing dwelling house including the provision of a spa to the rear of the property, at No. 79 Denning Street, South Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 79 Denning Street, South Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D45/15

 

 

Subject:                  A401/106 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/134/2015)

Folder No:               DA/134/2015

Author:                    Shona Porter, Development Assessment Officer       

 

Proposal:                 Installation of a new vergola structure above the existing terrace of Unit A401 (Variation to the building height control).

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Performance Building Consultants

Owner:                    G+C Coleman

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview17409.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 there is a variation of the Building Height standard by over 10%.

 

 

 

 

1.       Proposal

 

The subject application seeks approval for a vergola structure over the existing terrace of Unit A401.

 

2.       Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Brook Street between Dolphin Street and Ormond Gardens in Coogee and is presently occupied by two existing 5 storey buildings known as the Randwick Rugby Club site.  The site comprises of two lots the one for the rugby club component and the other for the residential comprising two residential blocks identified as block A (above the Rugby Club licensed premises) and block B at the rear of the subject site.  The subject proposal is located within block B.

 

Neighbouring the property to the northern side is a pair of two storey semi-detached dwellings, to the south is a four storey residential flat building and to the rear are a number of single and two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. Opposite the site is Coogee Oval.

 

Image 1: Subject Site

 

Image 2: Proposed vergola highlighted in green.

 

Image 3: Location of proposed vergola

 

3.   Site History

 

·          On 16 February 2001 DA/295/2000, was approved for redevelopment works to the Randwick Rugby Club site, which included demolition of the existing club building and erection of a 5 storey building comprising new club premises with gaming lounge, café/bistro and function room facilities, and 50 residential dwelling units.

 

·          On 31 October 2005 DA/812/2005 approved the installation of new louvres in between the existing pergola frames over the balcony of Unit 402 at level 4.

 

·          On 28 June 2011 DA/102/2011 approved for construction of vergola over existing north facing balcony to unit 502 of Building B.

 

4.   Clause 4.6 Exceptions to development standards

 

Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 provides a mechanism for variations to development standards in certain circumstances.

 

The proposal contravenes the building height development standard of Clause 4.6: Height of Buildings, contained within the RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

Maximum Building Height Control

Clause 4.3(2) states that the maximum height of buildings on the subject site is 12m. The proposal is inclusive of building height of 15m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

 

4.3 (2)

Height of buildings

12m

15m

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

25% (3m) variation.

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

·           The proposed vergola is an open structure,

·           No additional height to the building is proposed,

·           The vergola has minimal impact in terms of privacy, solar access and views obtained by adjoining residents,

·           Consistent with the existing development,

·           Will not compromise the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

It is considered that the proposed development and variation from the maximum building height standard is satisfactory in this instance. The submitted Clause 4.6 variation is well founded for the following reasons:

 

·           The proposal is below the overall height of the existing building

·           The proposed pergola follows the existing lines of the balcony and the resultant height does not exceed the height of the existing development hence not resulting in any intrusive or dominant visual bulk or scale that is out of keeping with the existing development

·           It is not considered the proposed vergola will result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the immediately surrounding units and adjoining buildings in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views. nor will it detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the subject site and the locality.

·           The proposed vergola will improve the amenity of the existing balcony as it will provide shade and increase the use of the balcony all year round.

·           The proposed vergola at 15m high is above normal eye sight level and is substantially setback from the Brook Street due to the stepped design of the building.

·           The proposed vergola will not be highly visible from the streetscape and is consistent with previous approvals.

 

It is considered that approval of this development would not compromise the integrity of LEP 2012.

 

The proposed variation of Clause 4.3 is in this case considered to be well founded and proposed development is considered to have merit.

 

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

The proposal has been 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.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

•   To protect the amenity of residents.

•   To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Comments:

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

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary in this case, for a new retractable awning to the existing balcony for Unit 16 at third floor level

does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

5.       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:

 

·     
88 Dolphin Street

Issue

Comment

Site plan and overshadowing plans were incorrectly prepared. Request new plans to ascertain shadowing impacts.

 

 

 

The plans provided with the application are considered to be sufficient to enable an assessment of the proposal in addition to the site inspection conducted.

 

In respect to overshadowing of the objector’s premises, 88 Dolphin Street is located north of the subject site. The property will therefore not be affected by the proposed development.

 

Notwithstanding, the proposed development is not considered to result in any significant additional overshadowing impacts to surrounding development.

The development breaches the height limit and should not be allowed. The existing development is already unsightly.

The size of the proposed pergola is considered acceptable having regard to its size, its location and its appearance from both the Bream Street and Dolphin Street frontages.

 

See further discussion below regarding the breach in height limit.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal involves the addition of a pergola over the balcony located at the top level of a flat building. The external modifications are considered to maintain the architectural style of the approved development and are considered relatively minor.

 

The non-compliance with the building height standard under the RLEP is considered to have been reasonably justified both in terms of architectural integrity and negligible impacts on the nearby and adjoining dwelling and its appearance from the public domain. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to the conditions of consent contained within the attached report.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/134/2015 for Installation of a new vergola structure above the existing terrace of Unit A401 subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - A401/106 Brook Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D46/15

 

 

Subject:                  307 -327R Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra (DA/265/2015)

Folder No:               DA/265/2015

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Construction of temporary structures and temporary use of the northern part of Arthur Byrne Reserve for Great Euro Circus event from 22 June 2015 to 12 July 2015

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mr S Cassie

Owner:                    NSW Department of Lands - Crown Land Division

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview35362.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as it is seeking consent to use a Council reserve for the purposes of a Circus.

 

 

 

 

1.       Proposal

 

The proposal is for temporary use of the northern part of Arthur Byrne Reserve for purposes of a circus event (“Great Euro Circus”) from 22 June 2015 to 12 July 2015, and installation of temporary structures.  The maximum area of space required by the circus during its occupation of the premise is 100m by 100m. The details of the proposal are described below:

 

Layout of temporary structures and associated facilities

 

Temporary structures

The temporary structures to be installed include:

 

Main tent: 38m diameter, Cupola style 4 king pole big top circus tent, 4m maximum wall height and 15.25m king pole.

 

Foyer tent: 20m diameter, 1 King circus tent, 3.5m maximum wall height and 12.79m king pole.

 

Staff numbers

30 performers and 20 support staff will be employed

 

Animals

6 x miniature ponies and 6 x Gypsie Cobb Horses will take part in the performance.

 

Site vehicles and accommodation facilities

The following vehicles are required:

 

Transport vehicles and trucks - comprising 5 semi trailers and 20 trucks for transporting equipment and towing caravans; and

 

Performer accommodation caravan units - 20 purpose built caravans providing site accommodation for performers and staff.

 

We note that once the vehicles and accommodation units are located on site, they are static and will not be moved on or off site until bump out. Accordingly, any vehicles required to transport staff from the site will be done primarily using taxis and off site vehicles.

Audience numbers

Maximum tent capacity: 1032 persons (including 16 wheelchair seating spaces for people with a disability and carers seat space)

 

Based on our show records and history the operator’s indicates that the average estimate number of audience that have attended the show is between 300 to 400 persons.

 

Performance schedule dates and times

 

 

Show running time

The production time is (on average) 2 hours including a 15 minute intermission.

Toilets

The Great Euro Circus will provide 9 ambulant facilities on the site, designating the following ambulant facilities:

 

4 x female toilet

4 x unisex toilet

1 x disabled toilet

 

Maintenance

Maintenance on site will be restricted to the following hours:

10.00 am - 5.00pm

 

Food services

A canteen and VIP circus canteen bar will be provided selling food and beverages.

 

No alcohol will be sold.

 

The canteen bars will operate during the following times:

 

·          up to one hour prior to any scheduled show;

·          during intermission; and

·          up to half an hour before the finish of any scheduled show.

 

Security

The Great Euro Circus has 24 hour permanent security patrol staff on site at all times. During any scheduled performance time an additional 3 security staff will be patrolling the site from two hours prior to the scheduled show to one hour after any scheduled show.

 

During and after hours security lights will be provided to illuminate the foyer tent, the main tent, ambulant facilities and walkways.

 

2.       Site and surrounding area

 

Arthur Byrne Reserve is a large grassed beachside park located directly adjacent to Maroubra Beach.  Maroubra Skate Park and playground are located within the reserve.  Vehicle access to Arthur Byrne Reserve is gained via Fitzgerald Avenue and Marine Parade.

 

The area is surrounded by a mixture of uses and actives, to the east of the reserve is Maroubra beach, to the north east is Maroubra Beach Pavilion which is situated in the central part of Maroubra Beach, to the north is Maroubra Beach car park and further north west are commercial buildings along Mckeon Street and Marine Parade, Maroubra Seals Club and residential development.  To the west of the subject reserve is Broadarrow Reserve and residential development and to the south is Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club and carpark and residential development with Long Bay Rifle Range beyond.

 

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 one submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

2 Broome Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

There is no location map or plans and elevation to depict the impacts.

 

The event will impact on traffic, parking and noise disturbance to local residents. 

 

An impact assessment of the event has not been submitted in the SEE having regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

 

The location plan and area to be occupied for the event has been place on the Council’s web for the public to view.

 

The information provided is sufficient for Council to assess the environmental impacts of the event with regards to the relevant State and Local planning controls.

 

The circus event will last for a total period of 21 days, including ‘bump-in’ and ‘bump-out’. It is acknowledged that there will be more people visiting Arthur Byrne Reserve with increased levels of activities, noise and traffic during the event. However, subject to the recommended conditions, including noise control, waste management, traffic management and on-site operational management requirements, the proposal would not cause any significant and sustained impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood. Refer to Key Issues below which address the environmental impacts.

 

The works proposed for the event seems to be undervalued.  This seems to be designed to minimise the assessment fee paid to Council.

As the works only relate to temporary structures no objection is raised to the estimate provided.

The application should be referred to an external regional planning assessment body as it is assumed that Council will be profiting from the use of its assets by a commercial venture and to assess the application internally would be a conflict of interest.

Council is not the Applicant for the DA and the works do not exceed $5 million which is the threshold for referral to the JRPP. The use of the reserve will be charged in accordance with Council’s adopted fees and charges.

 

The application and use appears to be inconsistent with the zone and Maroubra Beach Plan of Management which restricts the granting of license for commercial purposes and workers to living on the site.

The proposed is permissible subject to Clause 2.8 of the LEP which allows temporary uses.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Maroubra Beach Plan of Management in that the circus event will enrich the use of the reserve and deliver entertainment opportunities that will encourage families and younger members of the community to utilise and engage with the open space.  Refer to Key Issues below under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 & Maroubra Beach – Plan of Management which further addresses these issues.

 

 

Key Issues

 

3.1          Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under RLEP 2012. Circuses are not defined in the LEP. The closest definition in the LEP Dictionary that suits the proposed use is “entertainment facility”, which means “a theatre, cinema, music hall, concert hall, dance hall and the like, but does not include a pub or registered club.” Entertainment facility is not permissible under the land use table for the RE1 Zone.

 

Notwithstanding, the proposed circus use and associated temporary structures are made permissible pursuant to Clause 2.8 of the LEP and State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures) 2007. Refer to the following paragraphs for details.

 

The objectives for the RE1 Zone are addressed as follows:

 

-     To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

 

The proposed use and temporary structures will occur within the north portion of Arthur Byrne Reserve for a defined period of 21 days only. The provision of a once-off entertainment event within a portion of the park will not detract from its primary function as a public recreational resource.

 

-     To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

 

The provision of a circus event will activate the park and broaden the range of leisure activities available to the community.

 

-     To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

 

The circus will occupy an existing open field. The tents and caravans will not encroach upon any significant vegetation on the site. Appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure that the event will not cause any undue damage to the park vegetation and facilities.

 

-     To protect, manage and restore areas with high biodiversity, ecological and aesthetic values, including buffer areas and habitat corridors.

 

The circus is a temporary event and will not permanently affect the aesthetic and ecological setting of the park. As discussed, appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure no undue damage to the vegetation and facilities will occur.

 

Clause 2.8       Temporary use of land

This clause provides for the temporary use of land if the use does not compromise future development of the land, or have detrimental economical, social or environmental impacts. Development consent may be granted for a temporary use for a maximum period of 52 days in any period of 12 months.

 

The matters for consideration outlined under sub-clause (3) are addressed as follows:

 

(a)      the temporary use will not prejudice the subsequent carrying out of development on the land in accordance with this Plan and any other applicable environmental planning instrument, and

 

The Maroubra Beach Plan of Management encourages this area to be used for community assets for structured and unstructured recreation and utilise the large available area for possible stormwater detention and water quality enhancement.

 

The area in question presently contains flat open fields and the provision of a temporary circus event will not prejudice the subsequent existing and future development of the park.

 

(b)     the temporary use will not adversely impact on any adjoining land or the amenity of the neighbourhood, and

 

The circus will last for a total period of 21 days (including bump-in and bump-out). It is acknowledged that there will be more people visiting the park with increased levels of activities, noise and traffic during the event. However, subject to the recommended conditions, including noise control, waste management, traffic management and on-site operational management requirements, the proposal would not cause any significant and sustained impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

(c)      the temporary use and location of any structures related to the use will not adversely impact on environmental attributes or features of the land, or increase the risk of natural hazards that may affect the land, and

 

The proposed tents and caravans will occupy the north portion of Arthur Byrne Reserve only. The area in question presently contains flat open fields and the facilities will not encroach upon any existing vegetation. The proposal will not adversely affect the environmental attributes of the park or increase the risk of natural hazards.

 

(d)     at the end of the temporary use period the land will, as far as is practicable, be restored to the condition in which it was before the commencement of the use.

 

This matter will be addressed by the recommended conditions.

 

Clause 6.12 Development requiring the preparation of a development control plan

(1)  The objective of this clause is to ensure that development on certain land occurs in accordance with a site-specific development control plan.

 

(2)  This clause applies to development on land:

 

(a)  that has a site area of at least 10,000 square metres, or

(b)  identified as “DCP required” on the Key Sites Map.

 

(3)  Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless:

 

(a)  a development control plan that provides for the matters specified in subclause (4) has been prepared for the land, or

(b)  guidelines and controls similar to those mentioned in subclause (4) already apply to the land, or

(c)  the development is of a minor nature and is consistent with the objectives of the zone in which the land is situated.

 

The subject land is a Public Reserve and has a land area in access of 10,000sqm (being 148616.91 m²).  Therefore, the above clause under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 will apply to the site.

A site-specific development control plan was not submitted with the application.

 

A site site-specific development control plan is not considered necessary for the site as the subject application is for a once-off temporary event and no permanent structures will be installed.  

 

This application is not a proposal that could be deemed as a redevelopment of the site. It is therefore considered that Council can waive the requirement for a site site-specific development control plan.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Temporary Structures) 2007

The SEPP enables the carrying out of development comprising the erection of temporary structures subject to development consent.

 

Clause 12 of the SEPP sets out the matters that the consent authority must consider, prior to the granting of any approval for temporary structures. They are addressed as follows:

 

(a)  whether the number of persons who may use the structure at any one time should be limited,

The submitted Statement of Environmental Effects indicates that the main tent has a maximum seating capacity of 1032 persons. Accordingly, a condition is recommended to stipulate the maximum number of audiences in each performance to 1032 to avoid overcrowding.

 

(b)  any adverse impact on persons in the vicinity of any noise likely to be caused by the proposed erection or use of the structure and any proposed measures for limiting the impact,

 

(c)  whether the hours during which the structure is used should be limited,

The proposed temporary structures are to accommodate a circus event. The venue is located in the north part of Arthur Byrne Reserve close to the intersection of Marine Parade and Fitzgerald Avenue.  The area which is to be used by the circus is buffered by Bernie Kelly Drive and Marboura Beach carparking area.  The nearest resident is approximately 150m from the area.

 

The event includes night time performances from 7:30pm to 9:45pm. It is anticipated that it would take approximately 30 minutes after the finishing time for all audiences to vacant the site (i.e. by approximately 10:15pm).

 

A special condition is recommended to move the finishing times 15 minutes earlier to 9:30pm, so that the noise impact on the nearby residents could be minimized with limited intrusion to their normal sleeping hours.

 

Refer to the “Environmental Assessment” section of this report for further details.

 

(d)  any parking or traffic impacts likely to be caused by the erection of the structure or its proposed use,

There are two main car parks within the immediate vicinity of the subject site.

 

·       The south car park is situated behind South Maroubra Surf Life Club and has a capacity of 160 car spaces.

·       The north car park is situated behind Maroubra Beach playground and Surfing NSW office block and has a capacity of 250 car spaces.

 

In addition to the above, within the immediate vicinity of the site there are perpendicular car parking spaces off Marine Parade, Mons Avenue and Bernie Kelly Drive which can be utilised for the event.

 

The application was referred to the Traffic Engineer who has advised that there is no major traffic management arrangements required for the circus event. It is considered that the existing parking facility is suitable to cater for the event and all vehicular traffic can be readily channeled into Fitzgerald Avenue and Marine Parade.

 

(e)  the principles for minimising crime risk set out in Part B of the Crime Prevention Guidelines,

The Great Euro Circus has 24 hour permanent security patrol staff on site at all times. During any scheduled performance time an additional 3 security staff will be patrolling the site from two hours prior to the scheduled show to one hour after any scheduled show.

 

The documentation indicates that during and after hours the area within and surrounding the tents including enter/existing points will be provided with appropriate lighting.

 

The performers and staff will stay on the site in their own caravans, which will be positioned around the tents. The proposed layout will enable a degree of casual surveillance of the event facilities at night times.

 

In addition to the above, within the documents a Risk Management assessment for the event has been prepared in accordance with the Australian Standard AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009.

 

(f)  whether the proposed location of the structure is satisfactory in terms of the following:

 

(i)  the proposed distance of the structure from public roads and property boundaries,

(ii)  the location of underground or overhead utilities,

(iii)     vehicular and pedestrian access,

The site is separated from the nearest residential properties by Broome Street.

 

There is no overhead wiring in the vicinity to the site. A condition is recommended to require the applicant to contact Council’s open space management staff, so as to ensure any underground services (such as irrigation system) will not be disturbed.

 

The event venue has convenient access to the local and regional road network. The site is also within walking distance from public bus stops on Marine Parade with regular services to the City.

 

(g)  whether it is necessary to provide toilets and washbasins in association with the use of the structure,

The event will be providing 9 toilets in total on the site.  The toilets will be designated as follows: four (4) toilets for unisex, four (4) toilets for females and one (1) disabled toilet.

 

A special condition is recommended to ensure the event provides appropriate temporary toilet facilities to meet the BCA standards. 

 

(h)  whether the structure is proposed to be erected on land that comprises, or on which there is:

(i)  an item of environmental heritage that is listed on the State Heritage Register, or that is subject to an interim heritage order, under the Heritage Act 1977, or

(ii)  a place, building, work, tree, relic or Aboriginal object that is described as an item of environmental heritage or as a heritage item in another environmental planning instrument, or

(iii)  land identified as a heritage conservation area, an archaeological site or a place of Aboriginal heritage significance in another environmental planning instrument,

 

The site is not listed as a heritage item or identified to have potential for Aboriginal artifacts.

 

(i)  the duration for which the structure should be permitted to remain on the land concerned,

The site will be occupied for a total of 21 days (including bump in and bump out). The actual number of days with performance is 16 days. The duration of the event is not considered to result in unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the surrounding residences, subject to the recommended conditions.

 

(j)  whether any conditions should be imposed on the granting of consent in relation to the dismantling or removal of the structure in view of any safety issues.

Standard conditions are recommended to ensure adequate site management and execution of building works.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No. 71 Coastal Protection

The subject site is located within the Coastal Zone as defined under the Coastal Protection Act 1979. Accordingly, SEPP No. 71 applies to the proposed development.

 

Clause 8 of the SEPP specifies matters that Council is to take into account when determining a development application, which are addressed as follows:

 

Requirements

Comments

(a) Aims of the Policy in Clause 2.

The proposed development is considered to be consistent with the aims of the SEPP in that the subject application is for a once-off temporary event and no permanent structures will be installed in the reserve. The structures are located a fare distance (at least 100m) from the coastal line and are not considered to diminish the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore. 

(b) Existing public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability should be retained and, where possible, improved.

The proposal will not obstruct existing pedestrian access within the Arthur Byrne Reserve and Maroubra Beach.

(c) Opportunities to provide new public access to and along the coastal foreshore for pedestrians or persons with a disability.

The main public access way to and along the coastal foreshore will not be obstructed by the proposed development.

Access, entry and exit points to the event have been provided. Also, Emergency Evacuation Procedures Manual & Fire Procedure guidelines have has been prepared for the Great Euro Circus event.

 

(d) The suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area.

The subject application is for a once-off temporary event.  The tent structures and seating are not permanent fixtures and will not be impacting surrounding area.

 

(e) Any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore, including any significant overshadowing of the coastal foreshore and any significant loss of views from a public place to the coastal foreshore.

The amenity of the coastal foreshore will be maintained.  As discussed above the subject application is for a once-off temporary event and no permanent structures will be installed. 

(f) The scenic qualities of the NSW coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities.

As above.

(g) Measures to conserve animals and plants, and their habitats (within the meaning of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995).

There is no known threatened animal or plant species within the subject site.

(h) Measures to conserve fish and marine vegetation (within the meaning of Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994).

The proposed circus event will not extend to, or in close proximity to, the mean high water mark.

 

(i) Existing wildlife corridors and the impact of development on these corridors.

There is no known existing wildlife within the reserve.

(j) The likely impact of coastal processes and coastal hazards on development and any likely impacts of development on coastal processes and coastal hazards.

The proposal is not considered to be materially affected by, or contribute to, adverse coastal hazards.   The circus event is located at least 100m from the coast line.

 

(k) Measures to reduce the potential for conflict between land-based and water-based coastal activities.

The proposal will not affect the usage of the public walkways in Arthur Byrne Reserve and along Maroubra Beach.

 

(l) Measures to protect the cultural places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge of Aborigines.

There are no known Aboriginal sites or relics within the subject allotment.

(m) Likely impacts of development on the water quality of coastal water bodies.

The proposal is for a temporary, once-off circus event and is not considered to adversely impact on the water quality of the bay and ocean.

 

Waste management conditions are recommended to ensure waste generated from the circus event is disposed of appropriately and that suitable drainage is provided so as not to cause a nuisance.

 

(n) The conservation and presentation of items of heritage, archaeological or historic significance.

There are no known heritage items or relics within the subject allotment. The site is not located within any heritage conservation area.

(o) [Provisions relating to preparation of LEP’s]

N/A

(p) The cumulative impacts of the proposed development on the environment. Measures to ensure that water and energy usage by the proposed development is efficient.

The circus event is a temporary activity and is not considered to contribute unreasonably to any cumulative environmental impacts on the coastal foreshore.

 

As is discussed within the body of this report, appropriate event and site management conditions are recommended to minimise impacts on the environment and disturbance to the surrounding residences. 

 

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. Where a DA does not comply with a DCP, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions to achieve the objectives of the DCP controls.

 

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed as follows:

 

F1 Development in Recreation Zone

Controls

Comments

(i) The need for the proposed development on that land.

The proposed circus is not essential to the use and operation of Arthur Byrne Reserve. However, it is a temporary activity that would enrich the park and deliver entertainment performance to the community.

 

The temporary use and structures will not detract from the long term vision stated in the Maroubra Beach Plan of Management.

 

(ii) The need to retain the land for its existing or likely future recreation use.

The event venue currently contains open fields. The site will be reverted back to the current state after the completion of the event.

 

A specific condition is recommended to require the lodging of a bond with Council, which will only be released following inspection of the park by Council’s Open Space staff.

(iii) The impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use of the land.

The proposal is for a temporary, once-off circus event and will not affect the future use of the land.

 

The circus will only occupy the north portion of Arthur Byrne Reserve. The other facilities within and surrounding the reserve will continue to operate during the event. The proposal is not considered to unreasonably impede public use of the park.

(iv) Whether the proposed development is complementary to the scenic, recreational and/or ecological values of the land.

The proposed temporary structures will be dismantled after the event and will not have any long-term impact on the scenic or ecological values of the land.

(v) In the case of RE1 Public Recreation zoned land, whether the proposed development would:

 

(a) unreasonably impede or diminish the intended public use or public access to the land;

(b) be consistent with any relevant plan of management adopted by Council.

The circus will only occupy the north portion of Arthur Byrne Reserve. The remaining portion of the reserve and facilities within and surrounding the reserve will continue to operate during the event. The proposal is not considered to unreasonably impede public use of the park.

 

The proposal does not detract from the long term vision and action plans of the Maroubra Beach Plan of Management. Refer to the paragraphs below for details.

 

Maroubra Beach – Plan of Management

The Maroubra Beach Plan of Management (POM), dated September 1996 applies to the subject site.  The study area is defined by Jack Vanny Memorial Park; Mahon Pool and associated rock headland to the north; Arthur Byrne Reserve which is the subject of this application, rock headlands to the south; John Shore reserve, Broadarrow Reserve and the McKeon Street/Marine Parade shopping area to the west; as well as the beach and associated building. 

 

The primary objective of the plan was to update the Maroubra Beach Management Study so that Council can better manage the coastal environment of Maroubra Beach and its surrounds, while providing a diversity of local and regional recreational opportunity, and achieving a sustainable relationship between the conservation value of the beach and its foreshore areas and the recreational needs of the local community, tourists and visitors.

 

The plan of management overview comprises an extensive list of recommendations concerning the development and management of Maroubra beach and its surrounds. The recommendation relevant to the subject site relates to the western recreation reserves.  The aim of the policy is to develop these reserves as substantial community assets for structured and unstructured recreation and utilise the large available area for possible stormwater detention and water quality enhancement.

 

The land use policies outlined in the plan also encourage a diversity of uses to utilise the reserve to cater for a wide cross section of the community, especially youth.

 

The proposals will be consistent with the objectives of the plan in that the circus event will enrich the use of the reserve and deliver entertainment opportunities that will encourage families and younger members of the community to utilise and engage with the open space. 

 

The circus event will respond to and satisfy the recreational needs of the local community, tourists and visitors and will activate the reserve and attract visitors to the Randwick LGA with potential flow-on benefits to the local shops, restaurants and cafes without detracting from the long term vision for the park reserve.

 

The circus is for a once off temporary event and will not permanently affect the aesthetic and ecological setting of the reserve. No permanent structures will be installed and therefore, the amenity of the coastal foreshore, public access and pathways will be maintained. 

 

As is discussed within the body of this report, appropriate event and site management conditions are recommended to minimise impacts and disturbance to the surrounding residences. 

 

Public Reserves –Use for Circuses Policy

Council has in place a policy entitled “Public Reserves – Use for Circuses”, dated 13 August 2013. The Objective and Policy Statement are as follows:

 

Objective

To consider the wellbeing of animals in circuses prior to approving the use of parks or reserves in the Randwick City Council area for the purpose of circuses.

 

Policy Statement

That Council considers the wellbeing of animals in circuses when determining whether to approve any requests to conduct circuses in parks and resevers in the Randwick City Council area. 

 

In order to ensure the wellbeing of the horses in accordance with Council’s policy direction, a special condition is recommended to require the event to comply with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Regulation, the Exhibited Animals Protection Act and Regulation, and the Standards for Exhibiting Circus Animals in New South Wales.

 

Environmental Assessment

 

Section 79C Assessment

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Refer to the “Environmental Planning Instruments” section of this report.

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

Not applicable.

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

Refer to the “DCP” section of this report for details.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the EP&A Regulation are addressed by the recommended standard conditions.

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

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

 

As discussed in the relevant sections of this report the proposed development will not detract from the long term vision of the Maroubra Beach Plan of Management.

 

The potential noise and other amenity impacts can be appropriately managed via the recommended conditions. Subject to the above conditions, the proposal is not considered to result in detrimental social impacts on the locality.

 

The circus will activate the reserve and attract visitors to the Randwick LGA with potential flow-on benefits to the local shops, restaurants and cafes. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to carry positive economic impacts.

 

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

The site has convenient access to the local and regional road network and public transport services. The proposed location also has sufficient area to accommodate the required facilities and temporary structures. Therefore, the site is considered to be suitable for the proposed development.

 

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

One submission has been received. The issues raised in this submission have been addressed in this report.

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

The proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable environmental, social and economic impacts on the locality, subject to the recommended conditions. Therefore, the development is considered to be within public interest.

 

Traffic and Parking 

The maximum capacity of each performance is 1032 audiences. It is considered that a significant portion of the audiences would be families who would drive to the site.

 

There are two main car parks within the immediate vicinity of the subject site with the main access off Fitzgerald Avenue and Marine Parade, which is directly to the north of the circus venue.  The north car park is situated behind Maroubra Beach playground and Surfing NSW office block and the south car park is situated behind South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club.  The carparks have a total capacity of over 410 passenger vehicles.  The ratio of audience to parking bay numbers is 2.5 (based on a total parking bay number of 410 vehicles), and is considered to have adequate capacity to cater for the event. Refer to parking location plan below.

 

In addition to the above, within the immediate vicinity of the site there are perpendicular car parking spaces off Marine Parade, Mons Avenue and Bernie Kelly Drive which can be utilised for the event.

 

There are up to a maximum of two performances on the day.  These performances are proposed to be at least 45 minutes apart with majority of the performances being at least 3 hours and 15minutes apart.  It is considered that there will be sufficient time for the audiences of the earlier performance to vacate the site, before the arrival of those for the later performance.  Accordingly, there would not be a significant issue with overlapping of parking demand from audiences of successive performances on the same day. 

 

The circus event will be performing off peak when Maroubra Beach will not be as frequently utilised which frees up the car parking spaces for the event.

 

The application was referred to the traffic and transport committee for comment who has advised that there is no major traffic consideration required for the circus event; however, any traffic control to establish the site should be done by accredited traffic controllers to the appropriate Australian Standards and RMS requirements.

 

It is considered that the existing parking facility is suitable to cater for the event and all vehicular traffic can be readily channeled into Fitzgerald Avenue and Marine Parade.

 

The site is also within walking distance from bus stops on either side of Marine Parade, which has regular services from Maroubra Beach to City via Anzac Parade from Monday to Sunday (bus routes 395, 396, 397 and X97 & X96). 

 

A specific condition is recommended to require the preparation of a construction traffic management plan prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in order to minimise impacts on the surrounding residents and park users during works on the site.

Parking location plan

 

Noise

The circus event is likely to generate a significant number of visitors to the north portion of Arthur Byrne Reserve with increased levels of activities. The actual performances will involve the use of amplified music and occur within a tent structure with limited sound insulation properties. There will also be increased levels of vehicular and pedestrian traffic during the event. The above factors will contribute to noise impacts on the surrounding residences. The anticipated noise emission will be managed via the following measures:

 

-      In terms of site selection, the event venue is located in the north part of Arthur Byrne Reserve, which is adjacent to the intersection of Fitzgerald Avenue and Marine Parade near the commercial precinct.  The nearest residential properties are situated further to the north, west and south of the reserve and are located at least 150m from the event.  The site location is considered to be the least intrusive as compared to the southern part of Arthur Byrne Reserve.

 

-      The event includes night time performances from 7:30pm to 9:45pm. It is anticipated that it would take approximately 30 minutes after the finishing time for all audiences to vacant the site (i.e. by approximately 10:15pm).

 

A special condition is therefore recommended to restrict the finishing time 15 minutes earlier to 9:30pm, so that the noise impact on the nearby residents could be minimized with limited intrusion to their normal sleeping hours.  The condition also allows the event to start 30 minutes earlier to finish up within the restricted times.

 

-      Specific conditions are recommended to restrict rehearsals and facility maintenance times to between 9AM and 9PM, daily.

 

-      A specific condition is recommended to require noise emission from any plant and machinery (such as electric generators) to be within the limit set by the Industrial Noise Policy.

                            

-      Specific conditions are recommended to permit amplified music during performances only, and to require that the speakers be directed away from the nearby residential premises.

 

The circus is a temporary event involving 16 days of performances and will not result in any sustained impact on the amenity of the surrounding residences.  Subject to the above measures, the proposal is not considered to result in unreasonable impacts on the nearby dwellings.

 

Waste Management

A specific condition is recommended to require the preparation of a detailed waste management plan with the following information:

 

-         Type and quantity of waste to be generated

-         Waste storage facilities and equipment

-         Access and traffic arrangements

 

The waste management plan will be reviewed by Council prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate.

 

Animal Management

The circus involves 6 Gypsie Cobb horses and 6 miniature ponies in the performances. These animals are not considered to generate significant noise or safety risks to the surrounding residents.

 

In order to ensure the wellbeing of the horses, a special condition is recommended to require the event to comply with the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Regulation, the Exhibited Animals Protection Act and Regulation, and the Standards for Exhibiting Circus Animals in New South Wales.

 

A further condition is recommended to require the daily collection of manure in adequate containers to ensure the park will be kept in a sanitary condition during the event.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction 5a:     Maximise opportunities for residents and visitors to enjoy both active and passive open space uses.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The temporary use and occupation of the public park for the proposed entertainment event will require the payment of hiring fees to Council in accordance with the Fees and Charges Policy.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives of relevant State and Local planning controls.

 

The circus event will last for a total period of 21 days, including ‘bump-in’ and ‘bump-out’. It is acknowledged that there will be more people visiting Arthur Byrne Reserve with increased levels of activities, noise and traffic during the event. However, subject to the recommended conditions, including noise control, waste management, traffic management and on-site operational management requirements, the proposal would not cause any significant and sustained impacts on the amenity of the neighbourhood.

 

The circus will also activate Arthur Byrne Reserve and attract visitors to the Randwick LGA with potential flow-on economic benefits to the local businesses.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 265/2015 for temporary use of the northern part of Arthur Byrne Reserve for Great Euro Circus event from 22 June 2015 to 12 July 2015 and installation of temporary structures, at 307-327R Fitzgerald Avenue, Maroubra,  subject to the attached conditions of consent: 

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

 

 

 

Plan Number / Title

Dated

Received

Prepared By

Untitled aerial photograph showing location of event

 

Undated

24 April 2015

-

Harcourt Calculation Sheets 1 – 11 

15 July 2002

22 May 2015

Robert Harcourt & Associates

Harcourt Calculation Sheets 1 – 8 

March 2002

22 May 2015

 Robert Harcourt & Associates

Baytex Drawing 15.017.1e (Titled: 4 Pole Tent with 4m Side Walls Plan & Elevations)

8 February 2002

22 May 2015

Baytex Manufacturing Company Ltd and marked up by Wade Design Engineers

Baytex Drawing 15.026.002 (Titled: Foyer Tent Plan & Elevation Drawing)

21 June 2004

Baytex Drawing 15.017.3 (Titled: Main Tent Plan & Elevation showing Principle Dimensions)

25 March 2002

Baytex Drawing Witches Hat Dims (Tilted: Foyer Tent Witches Hat)

10 June 2004

Baytex Drawing 15.012.11 (titled: Cucola Construction Details 12m x 2m Steel Frame)

29 May 2001

Baytex Drawing 15.012.13c (titled: Cupola Fabrication Details Components & Assemblies)

11 June 2001

DesignPac Seating System 5575A

30 January 2002

22 May 2015

Osman DessignPac

DesignPac Seating System 5575B

30 January 2002

DesignPac Seating System 5575C

30 January 2002

DesignPac Seating System 5575D

30 January 2002

DesignPac Seating System 5575E

30 January 2002

DesignPac Seating System 5575F

30 January 2002

Emergency Evacuation Procedures Manual

Ref: J28264-1

10 October 2012

24 April 2015

Trevor R. Howse & Associates Pty. Limited

 

Audience Numbers

2.       The maximum number of patrons for each performance must be limited to 1,032 persons. The event operator must ensure that this limit is not exceeded for all performances.

 

 

 

 

Hours of Operation

3.       The performances are restricted to the following hours:

 

Date

Permitted Performance Time

25 June 2015 (Thursday)

7:00PM to 9:30PM

26 June 2015 (Friday)

7:00PM to 9:30PM

27 June 2015 (Saturday)

1:30PM to 9:30PM

28 June 2015 (Sunday)

12:00 Noon to 2:30PM

29 June 2015 (Monday)

No Performance

30 June 2015 (Tuesday)

2:00PM to 4:30PM

1 July 2015 (Wednesday)

1:30PM to 9:30PM

2 July 2015 (Thursday)

2:00PM to 4:30PM

3 July 2015 (Friday)

1:30PM to 9:30PM

4 July 2015 (Saturday)

1:30PM to 9:30PM

5 July 2015 (Sunday)

12:00 Noon to 4:30PM

6 July 2015 (Monday)

No Performance

7 July 2015 (Tuesday)

2:00PM to 4:30PM

8 July 2015 (Wednesday)

1:30PM to 9:30PM

9 July 2015 (Thursday)

2:00PM to 4:30PM

10 July 2015 (Friday)

1:30PM to 9:30PM

11 July 2015 (Saturday)

1:30PM to 9:30PM

12 July 2015 (Sunday)

12:00 Noon to 2:30PM

 

4.       No rehearsals are allowed before 9AM or later than 9PM, daily.

 

5.       No maintenance works are allowed before 9AM or later than 9PM, daily.

 

6.       In accordance with Randwick City Council is adopted Fees and Charges (2014/2015) a fee of $1170 (ex GST) will apply for each performance. Based on the submitted Performance Schedule, 25 shows are proposed. The fee payable for this event $29250 (ex GST), this does not include fees for Food Registration and other relevant application fees.

 

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.

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

8.       An Activities and Events Application for Parks, Reserves, Beaches and Streets must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to the issuing of any Construction Certificate for the temporary structures. (For further information on this application, please contact Council’s Open Space Booking Officer, Ms Nerida Ayshford, on 9399 0539.)

 

 

 

Waste Management 

9.       A Waste Management Plan detailing the waste and recycling storage and removal strategy for all of the development, is required to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Services prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

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

-     Details of the proposed recycling and waste disposal contractors.

-     Waste storage facilities and equipment.

-     Access and traffic arrangements.

 

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

 

Construction Traffic Management 

10.     A detailed Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Integrated Transport, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

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

 

·          A description of any demolition, excavation and construction works.

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

·          Any proposed road and/or footpath closures.

·          Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials.

·          Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including parking layout).

·          Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials.

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

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

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

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

·          Measures to maintain public safety and convenience.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia & Fire Safety

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

 

12.     All new work (including erection of tents and fit-out work) and fire safety works are to be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

Access & Facilities

13.     Access and facilities for people with disabilities must be provided to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Public Liability

14.     The circus operator / applicant is required to hold Public Liability Insurance, with a minimum liability of $10 million against any claim which may arise as a result of this activity. A copy of the Insurance cover is to be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Certification, PCA & other Regulatory Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

d)     at least two days notice must be given to the Council, in writing, prior to commencing any works; and

 

e)     the relevant requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 (as applicable) must be complied with and details provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration

16.     Noise and vibration emissions during the erection of the tents and associated site works must not result in damage to the park/reserve or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 must be satisfied at all times.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Building Inspection Requirements

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

 

Permitted Working Hours

18.     Building/erection of tents and associated site works must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Site Management

19.     Public health, safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition and building works and the following requirements must be complied with at all times:

 

a)     A sign must be provided and maintained in a prominent position at the site, which contains the following details:

 

·     name and telephone number of the manager, including a telephone number at which the person may be contacted outside working hours,

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

 

b)     The roadways, footpath and park/reserve must be maintained in a good, safe condition and free from any obstructions, trip hazards, materials, soils or debris at all times.  Any damage caused to the road, footway or nature strip must be repaired immediately, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

c)      Bulk bins, waste containers or other articles must not be located upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time without the prior written approval of the Council.  Applications to place a waste container or other articles in a public place can be made to Council’s Building Services section.

 

Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to any building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted. If necessary, a temporary safety fence or hoarding (having a minimum height of 1.5m) is to be provided to protect the public.

 

d)     Adequate provisions must be made to ensure pedestrian safety and traffic flow during the site works and traffic control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Manual “Traffic Control at Work Sites” (Version 4), to the satisfaction of Council.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

 

General Requirement

21.     It is a condition of approval that the activity complies with any applicable standards established by the Local Government Act 1993 and Regulation.

 

Public Place, Maintenance and Operational Requirements

22.     The event is not to begin until a first aid officer is on site.

 

23.     The applicant is required to indemnify Council against all claims, which might arise from the use of the reserves / public place.

 

24.     A Damage Deposit for the amount of $10,000 is required to be made in the name of Randwick City Council, to be claimed in part or full by Council should the grounds not be reinstated to the same condition it was prior to the use of the grounds.

 

25.     The applicant and all personnel associated with the activity / event must observe and comply with any directions given by any authorised Council Officer, including requirements and directions relating to the use of the ground, vehicles entering and leaving the reserve, location of plant and equipment, use of grass surfaces, public health and safety and environmental amenity.

 

26.     The applicant must bear the Council’s cost of repairing any damage to the public place / reserve, including any irrigation systems and pathways, that may result as a consequence of the activity / event.

 

27.     A written undertaking is to be provided by the applicant/event organizer, to make good any damage that may occur to the public place as a result of the carrying out of the activity, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

28.     The applicant is required to notify the nominated Council Officer detailed below, not less than three (3) working days prior to the commencement of the activity / event to ascertain any special operational requirements that may have to be satisfied for the duration of the activity / event. The below officer will also arrange additional toilet cleaning and keys to the park, if necessary.

 

Mr. Chris Hunter

Open Space Co-ordinator

Telephone No. 0404 070 510

 

29.     The applicant is required to contact the nominated Council Officer, detailed below to make the necessary arrangements for an inspection and photographic survey being undertaken by Council Officer prior to and after the event, to identify any items which may be damaged and be required to be reinstated. Please contact Chris Hunter on 9399 0727 or Nerida Ayshford on 9399 0539 to arrange pre-event and post-event inspections. Once the event is finished, a written request to Council is required to have the damage deposit returned.

 

 

30.     Vehicles associated with the activity must be legally parked at all times.

 

31.     Vehicles for the erection and dismantling of equipment are not to be parked on the reserve / park, footpath or nature strip, without the prior consent of Council or one of its authorised officers.

 

32.     This approval does not permit the closing of all or part of the road to traffic at any time, except with the specific written approval of the Council, NSW Police and (if applicable) the Roads and Maritime Services.

 

33.     Approval must be obtained from the NSW Traffic Police prior to the activity / event. In this regard, please contact Sgt Karen Griffiths, Traffic Section, Eastern Beaches Local Area Command, Maroubra Police Station on 9349 9301, to seek to obtain the necessary approval.

 

34.     Unrestricted access to properties within the area affected by the activity must be maintained for residents at all times.

 

35.     A minimum 1.5m wide pedestrian access path is to be maintained around the perimeter of the activity.

 

36.     Pedestrian access areas and paths must not be obstructed at any time.

 

37.     Cables or other equipment must not obstruct any pedestrian access paths at any time.

 

38.     If cables are located within pedestrian access paths, they must be fully secured at a height of 2.7m above the access path or they must be placed within a safe pedestrian access platform.

 

39.     A 1.8m high cyclone wire temporary fence is to be provided to the perimeter of the designated area, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

40.     The placing of advertisements, banners, and the like on Council’s perimeter fencing, trees, tree guards or any other park or landscape fixtures, fittings or structures is prohibited.

 

41.     The area and all facilities must be maintained in a clean and tidy condition, and the area / facilities must be thoroughly cleaned up immediately after the activity / event, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

42.     Temporary structures, marquees, stages, temporary fences and other equipment must be dismantled and removed immediately after the activity has finished, unless the specific written consent of Council has been obtained beforehand.

 

43.     No trees, shrubs or other vegetation are to be damaged or removed or lopped.

 

44.     Prior to the activity / event, the applicant shall distribute a notice to the residents of adjoining properties and other nearby premises advising of the activity / event and providing the following details:

 

-       Details of the activity / event

-       Time and date(s) when the activity / event will occur

-       The name and relevant details of the applicant and organiser of the activity / event

-       Contact details for the relevant person to whom further enquiries can be obtained

-       Any other information that may be required to properly and fully describe the event, including any measures to maintain reasonable levels of amenity and safety.

 

45.     Advertising and marketing of the activity/event shall promote the use of public transport to the activity.

 

46.     The State Transit Authority can be contacted on 02 9245 5777, to advise of the activity and to arrange for additional bus services if required.

 

47.     The use of firearms, explosives or lighting of fires is not permitted.

 

48.     Any temporary structures, marquees, stages, play equipment and other devices or the like must be structurally adequate and sufficiently secured to the ground at all times.

 

49.     A minimum of nine (9) unisex toilets and one (1) accessible / disabled toilet must be provided during the entire duration of the event.

 

50.     The use or sale of helium filled balloons is not permitted within Randwick, in accordance with Council resolution of 26 October 1999.

 

51.     The relevant requirements of WorkCover New South Wales and the Work, Health & Safety Act 2011, are required to be complied with at all times.

 

Animals Management

52.     The collection of manure shall be made on a daily basis.

 

53.     All manure shall be collected and stored in suitable vermin proof containers with a close fitting lid. All manure shall be stored a minimum of 50 metres from any residential property.

 

54.     The operation of the circus in relation to animals shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the following:

 

·      Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979

·      Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulation 2012

·      Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986

·      Exhibited Animals Protection Regulation 2010

·      Standards for Exhibiting Circus Animals in New South Wales

 

Environmental Amenity

55.     The activity / event shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance or affect public safety and convenience.

 

56.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance, cause a vibration nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

58.     The use of amplified equipment P.A system is not permitted external to temporary structures (i.e. tents).

 

59.     Amplified music equipment shall only be operated during performances.

 

60.     Speakers shall be faced away from nearby residential premises and all speakers where practicable shall be directed downwards.

 

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

 

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

 

62.     A report, if requested by Council, must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics within 48 hours, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development (including all plant and equipment) satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent.  A copy of the report is to be forwarded to the Council with or prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Waste Management

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

65.     Adequate waste receptacles and ash trays must be provided and the area must be thoroughly cleaned up immediately after the activity/event, to Council’s satisfaction.

 

66.     The operator of the business must also arrange for the recycling of appropriate materials and make the necessary arrangements with an authorised waste services contractor accordingly.

 

 

Food Compliance 

67.     The selling or serving of alcoholic drinks to the audience is prohibited at all times.

 

68.     All temporary food Stalls/Vendors must complete a temporary food premises registration form which must be submitted to Council 10 days prior to the commencement of the event.

 

Approval for the temporary food premises must be obtained from Council’s Environmental Health team prior to the event. Payment for the registration must be received by Council before an approval can be issued.

 

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

 

70.     Any portable toilet facilities are to be designed and installed to incorporate temporary chemical water closets approved under the Local Government Act 1993. The toilets shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at all times. 

 

71.     The requirements of the Food Act 2003 and Food Safety Standards must be complied with at all times.

 

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

 

a.   Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls

b.   Health and hygiene requirements

c.   Requirements for food handlers and businesses

d.   Cleaning, sanitizing and maintenance

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

 

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

 

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

 

75.     The food vendor must be registered with Council’s Environmental Health Section and the NSW Food Authority must also be notified of the food business in accordance with the Food Safety Standards, prior to commencement of food business.

 

76.     Temporary food premises, stalls, vendors or the like must comply with the relevant requirements of Council’s Temporary Food Premises Code or Council’s Code for the Construction and Use of Food Vending Vehicles, as applicable.

 

77.     Temporary food stalls and food vendors must satisfy the following construction and operational requirements:

 

·      The surfaces of all food preparation and service areas must be of good quality construction, with impervious washable surfaces.

 

·      All food preparation and service areas must be kept thoroughly clean at all times.

 

·      Food vendors and personnel must wear suitable clean clothing.

 

·      Food shall not be handled without tongs, utensils or suitable hygienic gloves, wherever possible.

 

·      The food must not be handled or stored in a manner, which may cause contamination of the food. This includes cross contamination between cooked and uncooked food, including: poor handler technique; handling food without suitable hygienic gloves; contamination from animals or pests; storage or display of food where it can be touched or sneezed upon by the public and use of unclean utensils and equipment.

 

·      Food shall be stored at least 750mm above ground surfaces. Food shall be kept covered or stored in closed containers, so as to prevent contamination (except when the food is being prepared and served).

 

·      All condiments such as sauce, mustard and the like shall be contained in squeeze type dispensers or in individual sealed packs and only disposable eating and drinking utensils are to be used.

 

·      Food stalls should be provided with a roof and three sides, which are covered with plastic sheeting, vinyl or other suitable impervious material.

 

·      The ground surface area within the food preparation, storage and service areas must be of suitable construction or covering, so as to ensure that the area is able to be kept clean and free from dirt, mud and dust or the like, at all times.

 

·      Readily accessible washing facilities must be provided for washing of utensils, equipment and hands. The washing facilities must include adequate washing water and rinsing water and warm water is to be made available for washing.

 

·      These requirements may be achieved by using appropriate facilities within a building, proprietary washing facilities and equipment or, the provision of separate plastic dishes of sufficient capacity for adequate cleaning of hands and utensils and a supply of hot and cold water being immediately available to the food stall operator/s.

 

·      Washing facilities must include an adequate supply of hand towels, liquid soap and detergent and sufficient facilities shall be provided to serve each food stall.

 

·      Waste water shall not be disposed of in a manner which would give rise to a pollution offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

·      All heating and cooking equipment including open flame barbeques and cooking plates shall be located within the stall or otherwise suitably protected from contamination, including by dust, overhanging trees, birds and the public.

 

·      Cooking and heating equipment shall not be located within reach of the public.

 

·      Temporary refrigeration unit/s or mobile cool room or refrigerated containers must be provided for the storage of perishable foodstuffs at a temperature of not more than 5 degrees Celsius.

 

·      Potentially hazardous food is required to be kept at a temperature of at or below 60 degrees Celsius or, at or below 5 degrees Celsius.

 

·      Potentially hazardous food includes raw and cooked meat, seafood, smallgoods, dairy products and deserts, food containing raw or cooked meat, cooked rice and pasta, foods containing eggs, beans or nuts, pizza’s, quiche, sandwiches, etc.

 

·      Smoking is not permitted in any food preparation, storage or service areas.

 

·      Adequate waste receptacles with lids are to be provided to serve each food stall / vendor.

 

GENERAL ADVISORY NOTES

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

 

A1      The requirements and provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, must be fully complied with at all times. Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

A2      The assessment of this development application does not include an assessment of the proposed building work under the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

 

All new building work must comply with the BCA and relevant Australian Standards and details of compliance must be provided in the Construction Certificate application.

 

A3      You may contact Council’s Manager Waste Services, Mr. Mark Bush, on 0418 229 240, to arrange additional bins and the collection of waste.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the Great Euro Circus Overview

 

2.

Link to the Great Euro Circus Supporting Documents and Plans

 

3.

Link to the Great Euro Circus Emergency Evacuation Procedures Manual

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D47/15

 

 

Subject:                  15 Monmouth Street, Randwick (DA/910/2014)

Folder No:               DA/910/2014

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including extension of the upper level (Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Denham 36 Design Studio

Owner:                    Mrs A J Wenderoth

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview35699.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks to carry out alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including an extension to the upper level.

 

Application history:

 

A meeting was held with the applicant to discuss the following with the application:

 

·      Heritage and design issues namely the bulk and scale of the first floor addition and its potential impact on the original roof form and the streetscape.

·      The non-complying side setback of the first floor addition from the southern side boundary had not sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the objectives for setbacks under the DCP.

 

In response the applicant submitted amended plans received by Council on 23 February showing the following modifications:

 

·      Reduction in size and increase in front setback of the front gablet to address heritage planner concerns that the original gablet would compete with the existing gables which characterise the Californian Bungalow style dwelling 

·      Clarification of northern and southern side elevations showing retention of the existing roof overhang along the side elevations providing a distinction between the existing and proposed first floor level.

·      Increased setback of 70mm from 600mm to 670mm from the southern side boundary achieved by locating the first floor addition along the inside wall of the existing ground level (shown in section)

 

Amended Shadow diagrams in elevation and plan form were also submitted as part of the above package however as these diagrams were drawn to magnetic north the applicant was requested to submit plans reflecting the impacts from true north. These diagrams were received by Council on 25 May 2015 detailing the following:

 

·      Elevation and plan shadow diagrams showing the difference between the proposed developments 670mm side set back and that of a 1200mm side setback with a 450mm eave overhang.

 

As the above-mentioned changes to the design reduced the impacts to adjoining properties and the streetscape the application was not required to be re-notified to the public.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Monmouth Street between Stephen Street to the north and Stanley Street to the south in Randwick.  The subject site is occupied by an existing two storey dwelling elevated above street level with a garage at front. The existing first floor level is limited to two bedrooms with floor to ceiling heights of 2.48m. The site has a frontage width of 12.19m, a side boundary depth of 37.645m and has an overall site area of 458.9m².  The immediate locality is characterised by a consistent subdivision pattern where properties are configured on an east west axis where the properties side boundaries run a northern and southern axis.

 

The topography of properties along this side of Monmouth Street also generally exhibit falls in ground level from rear to front and from side to side whereby parking is generally provided at the front lower parts of these properties at ground and or basement level. Neighbouring the property to the north is a two storey dwelling at No. 11 Monmouth Street, to the south is No. 17 Monmouth Street a split level single storey dwelling house with a newer rear addition shown from street level in photo 1. To the rear of the site are multi storey residential flat buildings fronting Cheptstow Street. The surrounding area is residential in character containing a mixture of semi-detached dwellings, single and two storey dwellings and flat buildings. It is noted that the southern half of Monmouth Street, from No. 11 southward taking in the subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and the northern half of Monmouth Street is zoned R2 Low Density Residential. Figure 1 is an aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area.

 

Photo 1: Subject site and adjoining dwellings at No. 11 Monmouth Street at left and No. 17 Monmouth Street at right.

 

 

Figure 1: Aerial view of subject site (bounded in green), and surrounding developments. Adjoining properties have been described above. It is noted properties bounded in red are those that have made submissions in response to the proposed development and those properties bounded in blue are strata subdivided developments containing flat buildings.

Submissions

 

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

 

·      17 Monmouth Street, Randwick

·      10 Stanley Street, Randwick

·      13 Monmouth Street, Randwick - Support

 

Issue:

 

·      View loss of centennial parklands from the rear living room of No. 10 Stanley Street

 

Comment:

 

The view loss is considered acceptable. See view sharing assessment in key issues section below.

 

·      The proposed second floor level does not comply with the minimum 1800mm side setback control under the DCP and will exacerbate the existing non-compliance at ground level having regard to adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

 

Comment:

 

There are two main aspects raised in the abovementioned issue:

 

1.  The applicable side setback control to the upper level addition and

2.  Impacts associated with the proposed developments setback from the southern side boundary adjoining the objector’s property at No. 17 Monmouth Street.

 

1.  Applicable side setback control

 

The definition of a storey and side setback controls under Section 3.3.2 of the DCP states:

 

“Any basement or semi-basement protruding less than 1.2m will not be counted as a storey”.

 

Based on the above note, the applicant submitted a section plan - shown below – identifying both the surrounding ground level (blue line) and a 1.2m line above (red line) identifying the basement (grey shading), ground (green shading) and first floor (red shading) levels. In this instance, the interpretation of basement, ground and first floor levels as shown in the section below are considered to be correctly interpreted whereby the proposed upper level addition is a first floor level (shown bolded in red and is therefore subject to the 1200mm side setback control under the DCP.

Figure 2: excerpt of proposed development showing the floor levels – ground being green, first floor level being red and basement level being grey.

 

2.  Impacts of non-complying side setback control for first floor level

 

The proposed first floor level being setback is 670mm from the southern side boundary and does not meet the DCP control. Where a development does not meet controls, the DCP requires an assessment to be carried out against the associated objectives – see key issues section of this report relating to side setbacks, overshadowing and visual and acoustic privacy. In brief, despite the first floor level not meeting the 1200mm minimum side setback control under the DCP the proposed upper level addition will satisfy the objectives in so far as it is 1.95m away from the dwelling opposite (as well as any future first floor addition) ensuring adequate separation for the purposes of retaining sufficient solar access to the neighbour’s north facing living room windows, roof (skylights) and rear yard and visual and acoustic amenity. It is also noted that the southern side setbacks of the subject dwelling and the objector’s dwelling are less than the setback from their respective northern side boundaries. The proposed southern elevation is also considered to be suitably articulated in so far as it is 8.2m in length (well below the maximum 12m limit under Section 4.1 of the DCP), it contains windows, it is stepped back from the ground level below by 70mm, it contains a change in material to the ground level and retains the ground level overhanging eaves.

 

Issue:

 

·      Privacy impact from the following parts of the proposed development:

 

First floor south facing side windows (W9 & W10)

First floor east facing rear windows (W7 & W8)

First floor east facing rear balcony

 

Comment:

The following comments are provided:

 

·      First floor south facing side windows (W9 & W10): The proposed southern side windows (W9 bedroom 3 & W10 – bedroom 4) are full length and allow for a direct downward view into the neighbours bedroom window at ground level. As such these windows are conditioned to be treated to ensure no direct view into this window.

 

·      First floor east facing rear windows (W7 & W8): The proposed rear facing windows (W7 – bedroom 4 & W8 - en-suite) are not directly opposite the neighbours windows and whilst there may an outlook into the rear yard of the neighbours property to the south it is not considered that additional treatment for the purposes of privacy protection will be required for the following reasons:

 

§ The outlook from these windows is generally towards the rear rather than towards the neighbours habitable room windows.

 

§ These windows service low use rooms and are not considered areas which will result in any significant adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring property’s private open space or habitable room windows.

 

§ These rooms generally contain their own privacy measures.

 

§ The location of these windows is not dissimilar to the location of windows in developments within the wider area which also afford some level of overlooking into each other’s rear yard areas.

 

§ In the context of a the urban environment where residential developments form a consistent pattern of development it is not considered that absolute visual privacy protection would be a reasonable requirement.

 

·      First floor east facing rear balcony: A condition is included requiring a privacy screen along the northern side of the upper level terrace. It is noted that the rear roof form is non-trafficable.

 

·      Due to excavation proposed on the subject site it is requested that a proper geotechnical investigation be undertaken, that a dilapidation report and a photographic survey be required prior to and post construction be submitted and copies to be provided to the adjoining properties.

 

Comment:

Appropriate conditions are included for the purposes of protecting the structures of neighbouring properties. Copies of these details are required to be submitted to Council.

 

·      Concern with asbestos that may exist within the premises.

 

Comment:

Appropriate conditions are included for the proper management of asbestos that may exist within the site.

 

·      Acoustic Assessment of mechanical plant and equipment that may form part of the development

 

Comment:

Mechanical plant or equipment is proposed to be located in the basement and appropriate conditions are included relating to acoustic amenity.

 

·      Construction management plan taking into consideration existing site conditions within adjoining properties and neighbouring properties.

 

Comment:

 

An appropriate construction site management condition is included.

 

·      Amendments should be made to the development to the proposed development to ensure compliance with the DCP controls.

 

Comment:

Whilst there are elements of the proposed development that do not satisfy the numerical controls such as side setback from the southern side boundary, it is considered that the applicant has suitably demonstrated compliance with the associated objectives under the DCP.

 

·      Exclusion of the basement understates the floor area proposed as part of the application

 

Comment:

Certain elements of the basement such as storage areas are excluded from the floor space calculations as per the definition for gross floor area under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. Notwithstanding, the basement elements will not be significantly discernible in relation to the bulk and scale of the development and impacts associated with the floor area.

 

·      The windows are less than 900mm form the side boundary and therefore may not comply with fire safety requirements

 

Comment:

Alternative solutions are available to the applicant under the BCA.

 

·      The proposed development will detract from and impact significantly on our property and architectural value of our premises which has received a commendation.

 

Comment:

The proposed development is suitably separated from and articulated such that it will not detract from the neighbouring dwellings.

 

·      The proposed development will detract from the significance of the heritage conservation area

 

Comment:

Councils Heritage planner indicates that the amended proposal reduces the impact on the integrity of the main roof and will reduce the streetscape visibility of the proposed upper level addition.  The amended also reduces the visual dominance of the proposed upper level addition in relation to original building fabric, and the extent to which it competes with existing architectural features and detailing. The amended proposal is also considered to be generally consistent with Objective and Controls in Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 and is appropriate in the Monmouth Street context.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP)

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Hence, where a DA does not comply with a control, Council must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternatives. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

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

 

Wall height

The Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP) has a 7m wall height limit for developments however for sloping sites it has a maximum external wall height of 8m. The subject site contains the characteristics of a sloping site in so far as there are variances in ground level adjacent to the dwelling from front to rear of 1.03m along the northern side and 1.29m along the southern side. The proposed development has wall heights that vary between 6.6m and 7.3m along the northern elevation and wall heights between 6.3m and 7.1m along the southern elevation. The proposed development is well within the 8m maximum permissible and for the most part particularly along the southern elevation, where most impacts of overshadowing are felt, the majority of the proposed wall heights measure 6.3m above the adjacent ground level (interpolated from survey) for the majority of its length.

 

Figure 3: Southern elevation of proposed development showing wall heights.

 

Notwithstanding, it is noted that the proposed walls are only 670mm from the southern side boundary and does not meet the minimum 1200mm side setback control applicable for ground and first floor levels under the RDCP. An assessment of this aspect of the development is carried out below under side setbacks.

 

Side setbacks

The side setbacks controls are that ground and first floor level structures for a site with a 12.19m frontage width that is over 12m that a minimum 1200mm side setback shall apply. The proposed first floor addition is sited over the inside wall of the existing ground level with a 670mm side setback from the southern side boundary opposite No. 17 Monmouth Street of which Council has received several submissions.

 

Given the non-compliance with the minimum side setback control from the southern side boundary at first floor level an assessment is required against the following objectives under the DCP which seek to:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

The proposed development is considered to satisfy the above objectives having regard to form and massing, adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access and will not result in any unreasonable view loss from neighbouring properties for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed development is suitably set back from the front elevation such that it will not dominate the existing dwelling. It is noted Councils Heritage planner notes that the reduced scale of the front gablet suitably minimises scale of the first floor addition, and will not detract from the significance of the item or the Heritage Conservation Area. It is also considered that if the development were made to comply with the southern side setback controls, it would present disjointedly from street level when compared with the location of the first floor level along the northern elevation.

 

·      The proposed development complies with the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP) standards for floor space ratio (0.53:1), building heights (9.3m) and for most parts of the external wall height control under the DCP.

 

·      It is considered that adequate separation for the purposes of visual and acoustic privacy will continue to exist between the proposed first floor level and the neighbours dwelling to the south at No. 17 Monmouth Street on the basis of the following:

 

o   Whilst the proposed first floor level is located 235mm closer than the existing first floor level from the southern side boundary it will still maintain a total separation of 1950mm between the two dwellings;

o   The proposed first floor level is located opposite the roof plane of the dwelling at No. 17 Monmouth Avenue and there will be no appreciable difference in outlook from the opposite neighbours ground level openings which will remain opposite the subject dwellings existing ground level whose side setbacks are not being altered – see photo 2 further below showing the existing site conditions between the two dwellings.

o   Requiring a complying setback along this section would not provide any appreciable material benefit to the neighbouring properties having particular regard to solar access, natural ventilation, view loss or visual or acoustic amenity.

o   There will be no appreciable difference in overshadowing to the neighbour’s north facing openings when compared with a compliant 1200mm side setback with 450mm eave overhang. Moreover, the proposed wall heights along the southern elevation are for the most part well below the permissible wall heights permitted for sloping sites and it is likely that if the development were to take advantage of the allowable heights there would be greater level of overshadowing than that which is occurring as part of the proposed development. The proposal will continue to retain at least three hours of solar access to the opposite neighbours north facing living room window – as shown in the access and overshadowing section further below.

o   A condition can be applied requiring the first floor level widow to be fixed and obscured to a minimum sill height of 1600mm above the internal floor level.

 

Photo 2: existing site conditions showing the ground levels of both dwellings as well as the existing first floor level at No. 15 Monmouth Street.

 

·      By locating the first floor level over the existing dwelling the proposed development retains the existing rear yard for the purposes of private open space and deep soil planting.

 

·      It is also important to consider that the 12.19m width of the site is only marginally over the threshold (12m and above) applying the 1200mm minimum side setback control and that if a site measured between 9m and 12m in width then a 900mm minimum side setback control would apply. As the site is only marginally over the threshold, it is considered that strictly applying the 1200mm minimum side setback control is a disproportionate application of the controls. Whilst the proposed location of the first floor level from the southern side boundary would still encroach on the 900mm minimum the degree of non-compliance would be less than half of that which currently occurs.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed first floor southern side setback satisfies the objectives under the DCP and would not unreasonably affect the neighbour’s amenity or the streetscape character.

 

Solar access and overshadowing

The proposed development provides the minimum 3 hours of solar access required for the neighbours north facing living room window located furthest along the northern elevation towards the rear of the dwelling (circled green in the elevation shadow diagrams shown below), solar collectors on their roof and rear yard. However as the proposed first floor addition is setback only 670mm from the southern side boundary and does not meet the 1200mm minimum side setback control under the RDCP, it is considered reasonable to include an assessment of overshadowing in this report.

 

It is noted that an objection received from No. 17 Monmouth Street raises concerns with the potential adverse impacts of the proposal such as overshadowing. Conversely the arguments from the applicant revolve around the reasonableness of the scale of the building, that locating the development further in would serve no appreciable benefits of solar access, if the proposal were made to meet the minimum side setback control it will not significantly improve solar access to the adjoining premises and that the current proposal meets the minimum solar access requirements under the DCP.

 

In assessing the proposal against the DCP controls for solar access and overshadowing to neighbouring properties north facing living room windows and roof, the elevation shadow diagrams shown below at 8am, 12 noon and 4pm demonstrate that there is only minimal difference in overshadowing between the proposed development and a complying development (with a 1200mm side setback with 450mm eave overhang) and that the controls requiring a minimum of three hours of solar access to living room windows and roof plane will be achieved as a result of the proposed development. It is also noted that the neighbours north facing ground level windows are not considered to be an area that can reasonably be required to retain a minimum of three hours of solar access due in large part to the overshadowing caused by the existing dwelling within the subject site, the east-west orientation of the subject and adjoining allotment and that of the general subdivision pattern of the urban block making the southern neighbours dwelling particularly vulnerable.

 

Figure 4: 8am shadow - The proposed development will result in similar levels of overshadowing to that compared with a development that is sited 1200mm from the side boundary with a 450mm overhang. The additional overshadowing will occur to the top portion of wall (circled red) above the window below within the rear addition. The majority of overshadowing occurring to the ground level windows of the dwelling opposite is caused by the existing dwelling. It is further noted that the living room (circled green) furthest along the northern elevation towards the rear of the neighbours dwelling will not be affected by overshadowing from the proposed development.

 

Figure 5: 12 noon shadow – shows a similar to the situation above, the proposed development will result in similar levels of overshadowing to the northern elevation of the neighbour’s dwelling as well as their roof plane when compared with a complying development. It is important to note that the living room window referred to earlier will still retain solar access ensuring compliance with the DCP controls.

 

 

Figure 6: 4pm shadow –the additional shadowing to the neighbours roof plane is minor when compared with a complying development. It is also noted that there is minimal difference between the overshadowing caused by the existing and proposed development.

 

Roof skylights

 

The neighbouring dwelling to the south has skylights located within the roof of the rear addition as shown in the excerpt from the plans submitted with the development of No. 17 Monmouth Street.

 

Figure 7: Roof plan of No. 17 Monmouth Street (DA/380/2011) showing location of skylights (red and blue circles). Solar access will be retained to these skylights for at least three hours during the winter solstice.

 

Overall whilst the proposed development with a non-complying southern side setback will result in additional overshadowing, however it is relatively minor, and the neighbour’s north facing living room window, their roof plane inclusive of skylights and rear yard will not have less than three hours of solar access as a result of the proposed development.

 

Visual privacy

The DCP objective for visual privacy is to ensure development minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

There are two elements of the proposed development which have the potential for visual privacy impacts:

·      First floor south facing bedroom window

·      First floor rear balcony

 

First floor south facing bedroom window

The proposed first floor south facing bedroom windows are full length and have the potential for downward look into the bedroom window of the dwelling opposite. A condition is included requiring this window to be suitably treated with either fixed and obscured glazing to 1.6m above the internal floor level or alternatively install an external screen fixed to the window to restrict a downward view into the neighbours bedroom window.

 

First floor rear balcony

The proposed first floor balcony will have a direct outlook into the habitable room windows of the dwelling opposite at No. 13 Monmouth Street. A condition is included requiring a privacy screen measuring a minimum of 1.6m in height be installed along the northern side elevation of this terrace. It is not considered that any further measures are required for this balcony as it is shallow in depth and connected to a low use bedroom room.

 

Acoustic privacy

The RDCP 2013 requires that noise sources not be located adjacent to adjoining dwellings bedroom windows. The proposed layout is considered to be reasonably designed to ensure no unreasonable noise impacts to respective occupancies. It is further noted that noise associated with a residential dwelling is unlikely to result in any inordinate acoustic amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

View sharing

The proposed development results in the loss of views from the living room of No. 10 Stanley Street, Randwick. An assessment of view sharing (and loss) is considered against the applicable 4 step process provided by the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

Quality of Views:

 

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

 

 

 

Assessment:

The views as shown in photo 3 below – taken by the occupant of No. 10 Stanley Street – are of a portion of the Centennial Park tree line and a portion of the Sydney City Skyline to the left of the existing dwelling (shown bounded in blue). In relation to the tree line, this view is only a partial view over and at left of the existing second storey which incidentally has a floor to ceiling height of only 2.1m at the side elevations at front and rear with a raked ceiling that provides a higher floor to ceiling height. The views of Centennial Parkland and the Sydney City skyline are considered to be of a high quality.

Photo 3: Views from No. 10 Stanley Street, Randwick (see aerial photo below showing the configuration of the two sites and direction of views.

 

Photo 4: View of night time fireworks from the affected property

Figure 8: Aerial view showing the direction of views from the affected property at No. 10 Stanley Street.

 

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

 

Assessment: The view identified above is a standing view, as verified by a site visit to the affected premises, with the only sitting views being left of and above the existing single storey gable. Whilst views from living rooms are in general considered areas of a development that are worthy of retention in this instance, these views are across the properties at No. 17 and 19 Monmouth Street in the foreground and at left which are occupied by single storey dwellings and the views would be lost if they were to add a first floor.

 

Photo 5: View is obtained within a part of the living room (shaded blue).

              

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

 

Assessment: The standing views from a part of the living room are most affected. The applicant submitted a view analysis as shown in the photo below.

View analysis provided by applicant showing the view corridor retained and the existing first floor roof form for reference. Other elements shown include the existing development at the rear of No. 17 Monmouth Street in the foreground.

 

Views lost

The standing views from the lounge room to the left of and over the existing first floor level are being lost however these are least valuable in so far as they are limited to standing views, and take in a small portion of the tree line above the existing roof line and therefore considered negligible given its value. In relation to the night time and loss of views of fireworks, it obviously will depend on the height at which the fireworks explode. Notwithstanding, based on the photo provided by the affected neighbour it is considered that this view loss will also be negligible given that these fireworks are a significant distance away from the affected premises.

 

Views retained

The views retained are both sitting and standing views of both Centennial Park trees and the portion of the Sydney City Skyline left of the development – as shown by the area marked view corridor retained in the photo above.  However, it is important to note that the views are largely across the side elevations of the subject site as well as the side boundaries of two properties in the foreground at No. 17 Monmouth Street (shown in the foreground in the photo above) and to a limited extent across the side boundary of No. 19 Monmouth Street (not shown in photo however shown in aerial view). Both of these properties contain single storey dwellings and any future development will likely obstruct views along this corridor.

 

Based on the above analysis, the extent of the impact on views is minor having particular regard to the value of the view in question. It is important to note that the more valuable are views being retained along the corridor.

 

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

 

Assessment: Although the application fails to comply with the side setback controls, they do not affect the extent of view loss from the affected property at No. 10 Stanley Street. The most salient aspect of the proposed development that is affecting the view is the overall height which is in compliance with the LEP standards. Notwithstanding, it is noted that a flat roof form would allow for some view retention above the roof line of the subject site however as indicated previously it is noted that a flat roof design would be antipathetic to the heritage significance of the existing dwelling and the wider North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area. It is also noted that whilst the floor area could be redistributed or located at the rear of the dwelling it would generally be inconsistent with the development pattern along Monmouth Street where two storey elements are generally contained over the existing ground floor levels or thereabouts and this would unnecessarily result in additional impacts on the southern neighbours property having regard to shadow impacts on their north facing living room windows and rear yard area.

 

Overall, it is considered that whilst there will be a loss of some views it is not considered that these views are of a nature which would entitle them to protection, particularly given that these views are obtained across the side boundaries of the subject site as well as across the side boundaries of properties in the foreground.

 

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 will provide additional floor area at first floor level. The subject site is located in a heritage conservation area and identified as a heritage item and careful design consideration has been afforded in relation to the existing dwelling house. Concerns were raised by Council with the original scale and extend of the small gable at the front in relation to potential heritage impacts on the existing buildings elements at the front. The applicant subsequently amended the proposal by reducing the size of the gable element housing the bathroom at the first floor and increasing its setback from the front building line.

 

The first floor addition has also been the subject of an increase in its side setback by 70mm and further details have been provided showing the existing eave overhangs at ground floor level along the side elevations are being retained ensuring consistent appearance across both the northern and southern side elevations as viewable from street level. The main roof design is located behind the ridge of the existing tiled roof at the front of the dwelling providing sufficient separation to reduce its dominance on the original roof form. The proposed variation in materials will also assist in reducing its perceived bulk and scale. The overall design is acceptable in terms of bulk and scale and will contribute to the streetscape.

 

The proposed development will not result in any significant adverse privacy or overshadowing impacts to the adjoining properties. The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable. It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to the imposition of 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. DA/910/2014 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including extension of the upper level, at No. 15 Monmouth Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

 

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

b)   The following window/s must have a minimum sill height of  1.6m 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:

 

·      First floor south facing bedroom windows

 

Alternatively

External privacy screens may be attached to the south facing first floor windows to a minimum height of 1.6m above the internal floor level. The external privacy screens must be configured to restrict overlooking into the habitable rooms of the dwelling opposite at No. 17 Monmouth Street. The external privacy screens must be installed prior to the issue of any occupation certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 15 Monmouth Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

  


Planning Committee                                                                                                      9 June 2015

 

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M4/15

 

 

Subject:                  Review of the 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan - March Quarterly Report

Folder No:               F2014/03001

Author:                    Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting     

 

Introduction

 

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the annual Operational Plan. The 2014-15 Operational Plan was adopted by Council on 24 June 2014. In this report, achievement and status comments are provided for each action in the 2014-15 Operational Plan. Highlights are also provided where appropriate.

 

Issues

 

This is the March 2014 Quarterly Report and third review of the 2014-15 annual Operational Plan.

 

During the March report period one project was completed: the upgrade of the Baker Park tennis courts at Coogee. The works included foundation and surfacing work and new fencing. This brings the number of completed projects for the year to date to four.

 

From the activity undertaken by Council during the quarter there were many highlights. The following table lists our significant highlights:

 

City theme

City Plan Outcomes

Action code

Highlight

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1a. Vision for Randwick City Council

 

 

P001

 

The management team have developed workplans for the 2015-16 year for inclusion in Council’s draft 2015-16 Operational Plan and Budget.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1a. Vision for Randwick City Council

 

 

P002

 

 

For the first time the Long Term Financial Plan underwent an assurance review by Council's external auditors and as a result received an unqualified assurance report. This review provides an additional layer of credibility to Council's planning activities.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S003

 

 

Council's issued a media announcement about a Council proposed alternative interchange location for the light rail terminal at Randwick, which resulted in a front page Southern Courier article on 10 February 2015.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S005

 

 

Council reviewed and updated its Access to Information Policy and associated documents (Access to Information Guidelines and Frequently Asked Questions) during the quarter.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S018

 

S020

 

During the March quarter Council rolled out new online software at the child care centre, allowing staff access to new improved features, and developed the online swimming pool and health inspections module, ready for user testing.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

S022

 

 

A proactive Return to Work Program and improved safety culture is contributing to improving staff welfare.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1b. Leadership

 

 

P007

 

 

A focus of Council’s learning and development program for staff was the introduction of the Mental Health First Aid course which participants rated with a high overall satisfaction rate of 96 per cent.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1c. Continuous Improvement

 

 

P011

 

P005

 

 

The biennial AON Hewitt Best Employer survey showed an overall high result of 76 per cent for Randwick City Council and an increase in employee engagement.

 

 

1.Leadership in Sustainability

 

 

1c. Continuous Improvement

 

 

P013

 

 

Results of the Community Satisfaction Survey conducted in late 2014 have been used to inform service level standards.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S026

 

 

Information obtained from the Eastern Sydney Home Modifications and Maintenance Services Forum was used to help inform the review of the Council's own Home Maintenance and Modification Scheme.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S028

 

 

The Plan of Management for Randwick Community Centre was endorsed by Council at its February 2015 meeting. The outside classroom located at the northern end of the Randwick Community Centre will be able to accommodate a range of uses, including children's parties.

 

Randwick Community Centre outside classroom

 

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S030

 

 

Community Programs delivered included two parenting workshops at Margaret Martin Library and the Back to Prince Henry day at the Nursing and Medical Museum at Little Bay.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

S033

 

 

Council’s CCTV assisted NSW Police in 5 of their investigations during the March quarter and 15 investigations for the year to date.

 

 

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2a. Understanding Community Needs

 

P018

 

 

Council assisted La Perouse Youth Haven with a successful Indigenous Advancement Strategy application.

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

2b. Strong Partnerships

 

S036

 

A Precinct Combined Committee Meeting was held with the General Manager in January, with nine precincts represented.

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

 

2c. Community facilities

 

 

P021

 

 

Terms of Reference were developed for the Collection Management Sub‑Committee to guide its role in overseeing the preparation of the Preservation Needs Assessment of the La Perouse Museum collection.

 

La Perouse Museum

 

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

 

2d. Cultural diversity

 

S038

 

 

Bandaluzia Flamenco played to a packed house at the Prince Henry Centre in March and received a standing ovation. The Women's Art Prize selected works exhibition at Bowen Library Gallery was well attended by library customers and the community.

 

 

The Women's Art Prize

 

 

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

 

 

2d. Cultural diversity

 

S039

 

 

Significant Council events held were Australia Day and the Spot Festival which were well attended. Much positive feedback was received regarding these events via social media and emails to Council.

 

Australia Day Celebrations

 

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

S040

 

 

Council produced an Information Pack (second edition) on the State Government's Fit for the Future program and posted it to every household in Randwick City and non‑resident ratepayers.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3a. Communicating Effectively

 

S045

 

 

 

S046

 

 

During January to March, 145,917 people visited Randwick City Council's website, which marks a 1.4 per cent increase on the same period last year.

 

Council released a new version of myRandwick app (v4).

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3b. Promoting Services

 

S049

 

The Library provided 103 one‑on‑one TECHConnect sessions and eight Tech Talks on various topics which attracted 80 people. A motivational workshop Everyday Adventure was enjoyed by 47 residents and three Play workshops were attended by 42 parents and carers.

 

 

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

 

 

3c. Community Involvement

 

S050

 

During the March quarter, more than 8,000 people were involved in Council's community consultation program about the Future of the City of Randwick. Council has provided multiple opportunities for people to have their say through surveys, focus groups, online surveys and information stalls.

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

 

4a. Improved Design

 

P024

 

Council has endorsed establishment of a new Design Excellence Panel, to operate in conjunction with Waverley Council.

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

 

4a. Improved Design

 

P025

 

 

A Light Rail working group has been established with representation from Council and Transport for NSW to explore Council's alternative design proposal for the Randwick terminus and interchange.

 

 

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

 

 

4b. Robust Development Framework

 

S052

 

 

Council continues to perform strongly in processing DAs well within target timeframes. In the March quarter, Randwick City Council determined 90 per cent of DAs under delegated authority within 60 days (net time). 63 per cent of DAs under delegated authority were determined within 40 days (net time).

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5a. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

P029

 

 

The draft Plan of Management for the Randwick Environment Park was endorsed by Council on 24 March 2015.

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

5b. Range of Activities

 

P033

 

The upgrade of the Baker Park Tennis Courts was completed providing the community with enhanced recreational facilities.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

 

5c. New Open Space Creation

 

P036

 

The new Section 94A Plan has been adopted by Council, which identifies funding for light rail support measures including public space creation and improvements.

 

 

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

 

5d. Innovative Library Programs

 

S056

 

Feedback from The Author Talks series conducted by the Library showed 94 per cent of respondents rated the event as “very good” or “outstanding”; 85 per cent of respondents rated the Talking Tech and Made Easy series as “very good” or “outstanding.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

 

 

6a. Public Asset Management

 

 

 

P041

 

 

 

Council’s footpath and road rehabilitation programs are progressing ahead of schedule.

 

Staff undertaking stormwater drainage works

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6c. Community Safety

 

S068

 

 

Council upgraded sports fields and some high profile parks with new vertidrain aeration to improve surface drainage.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6c. Community Safety

 

S069

 

 

In preparation for the 100th anniversary of the ANZAC landing at Gallipoli, Council upgraded the platform and memorial plinth for the Anzac Day dawn service at Coogee Beach.

 

 

 

Anzac Day 2015, Coogee

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6d. Strategic land Use Framework

 

P052

 

 

The newly gazetted LEP and Associated DCP for the Inglis site sets aside the provision of 5,000 square metres of public open space.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6d. Strategic land Use Framework

 

P053

 

 

Council endorsed the new Development Control Plan which provides for the undergrounding of power lines.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6e. Housing Diversity

 

P054

 

A new affordable housing dwelling in Harvey Street, Little Bay was transferred to Council's ownership, in addition to the two new affordable housing dwellings transferred to Council's ownership late last year. The dwelling has been handed over to housing manager St George Community Housing, to be leased under the Council's Affordable Rental Housing Program's Procedures.

 

 

6. A Liveable City

 

6f. Distinctive neighbourhoods

 

 

P055

 

 

Work has progressed on the Belmore Road, Randwick urban design analysis with a concept design prepared for Sandgate Cottage to create a public space, and a design concept for the intersection of Belmore Road/High Street/Avoca Street to incorporate Council's preferred light rail terminus.

 

 

7. Heritage that is Protected and Celebrated

 

7a. Heritage

 

S072

 

 

The Library and Randwick and District Historical Society co‑hosted two heritage events at the Bowen Library which were attended by a total of 70 people.

 

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

8b. Hospital and University Precincts

 

 

 

S074

 

 

Feedback has been provided to the Department of Planning and Environment on a major development proposal on the University campus for a new biological sciences facility.

 

 

8. A strong Local Economy

 

8d. Tourism

 

 

 

S076

 

 

During the report period, updated local tourism statistics and current tourism information has been provided to the committee by Council.

 

 

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

 

 

9b.Sustainable Transport

 

 

P065

 

 

Randwick City Council continues to make car share parking spaces available as more residents decide to use car share vehicles. An estimated additional 750 vehicles could be parked on Randwick streets if car share vehicles were not available.

 

 

GoGet Car Share in Randwick City

 

 


 

 

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

 

 

9c. Integrated Transport

 

9e. Parking Management

 

 

 

P066

 

S081

 

 

 

Council has held meetings with ALTRAC, the light rail consortium appointed by TfNSW and is working with Transport for NSW regarding a parking strategy in association with the light rail project.

 

 

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

 

 

9d. Road safety initiatives

 

 

S078

 

 

In the year to date, Council has submitted around 31 items relating to road safety matters to the local Traffic Committee for consideration.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10a. Leader in Environmental Sustainability

 

P069

 

 

The upgraded Paine Reserve water saving treatment has been commissioned.

   

 

Paine Reserve irrigation works

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10b. Management of Environmental Risks

 

P073

 

 

Grant funding has been approved for a hazard risk assessment of Randwick City ocean beaches and cliffs to contribute to updating Council's Climate Change Roadmap.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10c Biodiversity and Natural Heritage

 

S086

 

 

Two species, new to the Fred Hollows Reserve have been identified - a small fern, Pyrrosia rupestris (Rock Felt Fern) and a small sedge, Cyperus mirus. To date 48 species have been newly identified living in the City including a long‑necked Tortoise, double‑barred finches and Spotted Pardalotes observed in Randwick Environment Park wetland.

 

Randwick Environment Park

 

 


 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10d. Sustainable Waste Technologies

 

S088

 

 

 

S090

 

 

 

Council resource recovery initiatives contributed to a 57 per cent rate of domestic waste diversion from landfill this quarter.

 

Individuals participating in the City’s Clean up Australia Day event at 20 clean up sites included students from 11 local schools, 2 youth groups and 2 businesses.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10e. Water conservation

 

S092

 

 

P079

 

Irrigation works at Chifley Sports Reserve have been completed and commissioned.

 

Through use of recycled and bore water, Council reduced its mains water consumption by an estimated 97,925 kL in the March quarter.

 

 

10. A Healthy Environment

 

10f. Energy conservation

 

 

S094

 

53,015 kWh of electricity was generated between January and March 2015 from solar panels currently installed on 8 Council sites.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 1:       Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a:     Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The purpose of the March Quarterly Report is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan. In addition, given that the Operational Plan is based on the 20-year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the March quarterly report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the information contained in the March 2015 Review of the 2014-15 Annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the 2014-15 Randwick City Council Annual Operational Plan - March Quarterly Report