Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday 14 July 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                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 14 July 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 - 9 June 2015

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D48/15      315 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/884/2014).......................................... 1

D49/15      6 Pearce Street, SOUTH COOGEE (DA/213/2015)..................................... 41

D50/15      51 Earl Street, Randwick (DA/218/2015)................................................ 63

D51/15      1-1A Major Street, Coogee (DA/617/2012/A).......................................... 69

D52/15      30 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/915/2014)........................................ 77

D53/15      10/311-313 Maroubra Road, MAROUBRA (DA/617/1997/D)........................ 95

D54/15      2 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/883/2014)............................................... 105

D55/15      44 Hooper Street, Randwick (DA/350/2015).......................................... 131

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D48/15

 

 

Subject:                  315 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/884/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/884/2014

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of three storey residential flat building containing 9 dwellings and basement parking for 12 vehicles, associated site and landscape works (variation to building height control)

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Mr P Samios

Owner:                        Est Late Mrs S Samios

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview19626.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

Proposal

 

It is proposed to:

 

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

§  Remove all on site trees.

§  Undertake earthworks primarily comprising excavation to provide a basement car parking level.

§  Construct a residential flat building with nine (9) units above a basement car parking consisting of 13 car spaces.  The residential flat building will generally consist of two main building pods (a longer one facing the street frontage and shorter one setback behind) that will be connected to each other via a central, core access zone.  The access zone will consist of lift, stairs, and lobby facilities.

§  Establish new on-site landscaping.

§  Install new storm water infrastructure.  All roof and surface water will be directed to a rainwater tank and an on-site detention tank.  Overflow will be directed to the public storm water system along Maroubra Road.

The driveway location will be as per the existing location.  Use will be made of the existing crossover over Council’s footpath.  A ramp will extend a short distance adjacent to the western side boundary.  Electronically controlled security grilles will be provided at the bottom of the access ramp.  The basement level will include a waste storage room for 10 bins.

 

The unit composition will be 2 x 1 bedroom units and 7 x 2 bedroom units.  The building composition is summarised in the Table below.

 

Table 1 | Building Composition

Level

 

Basement Level

13 car parking spaces.

Waste bin storage room.

Lift and stairwell access

Ground Floor Level

Central lobby, lift and stairwell access.

Clothes drying facilities

Water tank

Central and rear communal areas.

Bicycle parking spaces.

Front Pod

Unit 1: 1 bedroom

Unit 2: 1 bedroom

Rear Pod:

Unit 3: 2 bedrooms

First Floor Level

Central lobby, lift and stairwell access

Front Pod

Unit 4: 2 bedrooms

Unit 5: 2 bedrooms

Rear Pod:

Unit 6: 2 bedrooms

Second Floor Level

Central lobby, lift and stairwell access

Front Pod

Unit 7: 2 bedrooms

Unit 8: 2 bedrooms

Rear Pod:

Unit 9: 2 bedrooms

Roof Level

Lift and stairwell access.

Front Pod

Unit 7: Private roof terrace

Unit 8: Private roof terrace

Common roof terrace

Rear Pod:

Unit 9: Private roof terrace

 

 

315 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Image 1: Subject Site

 

Site

The subject site (the Site) comprises of one allotment addressed as 315 Maroubra Road, Maroubra and registered as Lot 1334 in DP 752015.  It is located on the south side of Maroubra Road (between Clio Lane and Flower Street). 

 

The total area of the Site is 744.7m² by way of survey.  It has a 15.25m frontage to Maroubra Road (northern), 15.295m southern (rear) boundary length, 49.515m western (side) boundary length and 48.195m eastern (side) boundary length. 

The Site consists of a single storey dwelling house of face brick construction with a hipped, tiled main roof, and a small gable feature located centrally on the front elevation. 

 

Setback behind the south west corner of the dwelling is a detached garage of fibro construction with a tiled gable roof.  Driveway access extends directly from Maroubra Road, adjacent to the western side boundary.

 

The Site has a general fall from the rear of the Site to Maroubra Road.  The lowest point of the Site is located at the front northwest corner (RL 47.91), its highest point is located at the rear southwest corner (RL 51.66).  This represents a fall of 3.75m along the length of the western side boundary.  The fall along the length of the eastern side boundary is approximately 2.8m from the rear to the front boundary. 

 

Based on the survey spot levels, there is a very minor fall from the west to the east side boundary along the rear boundary length of the Site of 0.66m.  This generally dissipates upon approach to the front section of the Site.  At this section the fall reverts to a minor fall from the east side to the west side boundary.  The fall along the length of the front boundary (from the east to the west side boundary) is approximately 0.21m. 

 

Behind the rear building line of the existing garage is a sandstone retaining wall, approximately 1m in height.  It extends from side boundary to side boundary and retains the rear section of the site which is higher in level.  Further south (towards the rear) is a low, stone retaining wall.

 

There are numerous trees on the Site, with the largest trees located adjacent to the eastern side boundary (almost halfway down the site) and at rear of the Site.  There are two (2) street trees directly adjacent to the Maroubra Road frontage. 

 

Fencing along the rear and eastern side boundary mainly consists of a standard paling fence.  A low, brick fence extends along the front boundary and a minor length of the eastern side boundary.  A metal panel fence extends along the majority of the western side boundary.

 

The submitted survey plan indicates the Site is subject to Crown grant that states the ‘land excludes minerals and is subject to reservations and conditions in favour of the Crown’. There are various services and infrastructure along Maroubra Road, such as public transport, adjacent to the site.

 

Neighbouring Properties

The neighbouring property to the east, known as 317 Maroubra Road, consists of a four (4) level, 1960’s, residential flat building of face brick construction and pitched (hipped) tiled roof.  The ground level of the building consists of garages facing the street frontage.  At the rear of the property is a detached building that accommodates a row of three (3) garages.

 

20150306_162409

Image 2:  West (side) elevation of 317 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

 

The neighbouring property to the west, known as 311 – 313 Maroubra Road, consists of a three (3) storey residential flat building with a basement level underneath.  The building generally consists of face brick external walls and a flat roof form with roof top terraces. 

 

On the opposite side of Maroubra Road are various residential flat buildings.

 

20150306_162507

Image 3:  Residential flat buildings on opposite side of Maroubra Road, Maroubra (in the foreground).

 

The rear of the Site is adjoined by semi-detached dwellings that have a frontage to Haig Street and are addressed as 70 and 72 Haig Street.  A minor length of the Site’s rear boundary (towards the western side) is abutted by 68 Haig Street which consists of a detached dwelling house.  Two (2) other residential properties extend further west along Haig Street up to the intersection with Cilo Lane.  They each consist of detached dwelling houses. Towards the southeast side of the Site is the property 74 Haig Street, which consists of a two level residential flat building. 

 

Further east of the Site, on the corner of Maroubra Road and Flower Street (at 325 Maroubra Road) is the Maroubra Fire Station building.  This building is listed as a heritage item of local significance under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. 

 

Further to the east and west along the southern side of Maroubra Road are numerous residential flat building developments that vary in architectural style.  Maroubra Junction is located approximately 600m to the west of the Site, whereas Maroubra Beach is located approximately 1km to the east of the Site.

 

Clause 4.6 Exception

 

Building Height

As indicated in Table 3, only minor sections of certain roof features will exceed the 12m height standard of Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.  The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify for a variation to the height development standard has been submitted by the applicant.  Refer to ‘Clause 4.6’ below.

 

Table 3 | Building Height Measurements

Common Area Pergola & roof slab behind

(existing ground level below = RL48.23/48.25)

Proposed max. RL = 60.6 

Proposed maximum height = 12.37/12.35m

Variance = 0.3m (roof only) -0.52m (roof plus supporting pole at northern end)

Frosted side glazing privacy screens to common roof top terrace

(existing ground level below to east = RL 48.23)

(existing ground level below to west = RL 48.21)

Proposed max. = RL59.53 

Proposed maximum height to east = 11.3m

Proposed maximum height to west = 11.32m

Complies.

NB:  The Amended plans indicate a slight variance, however based on survey RL’s, the side glazing privacy screens will achieve compliance.

Lift Overrun

(existing ground level below = RL48.3)

Proposed max. RL 62

Proposed maximum height = 13.7m

Variance = 1.7m

 

Main Stairwell

(existing RL 48.31)

Proposed max. RL 60.6

Proposed maximum height = 12.29m

Variance = 0.29m

Stairwell Overrun Further North

(average existing RL 48.16)

Proposed max. RL 61.4

Stairwell further to the north: 13.24m

Variance = 1.24m

The top corner only.

Stairwell Overrun Further South

(existing RL 49.56 – RL 49.72)

Proposed max. RL 62.8

Stairwell further to the south (rear): 13.08m -13.24mm

Variance = 1.08 - 1.24m

The top corner only.

 

Only minor sections of certain roof features will exceed the 12m height limit, otherwise the main built form will be compliant.  The variances relate to the pergola structure (roof and portion of support poles), upper section of the main stairwell overrun, upper section of the lift overrun and the top corner of 2 stairwell overruns.  Below is an image which highlights in red the parts of the building that will exceed the maximum permissible building height at Section A-A.

Figure 1 | Section A-A demonstrating extent of height non-compliance

Request to vary development standard

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of

the maximum height standard contained in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Further, pursuant to subclause (4) the following applies:

 

(a)  the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The Applicant has submitted the following summary points in regards to the above objectives and in support of the Clause 4.6 exception:

 

Why Compliance with the Development Standard is Unreasonable or Unnecessary in the Circumstances of the Case

Compliance with the 12m-height limit is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·      The extent of the departure in each case is minor ranging from only approximately 4% to less than 10% of the standard.

·      The majority of the building is well under the maximum height of 12m in some parts below Council’s maximum external wall height of 10.5m demonstrating an overall height of development within that contemplated under Council’s planning controls, consistent with developments on adjoining properties and the desired future character of the area.

·      The sections of the building over 12m will be obtusely visible or completely obscured from view from the public domain surrounding the site.

·      Shadow diagrams, which accompany the application, demonstrate that the additional shadows cast from the non-compliant portions of the building will fall mainly onto roofed areas of the proposed building and represent minor to negligible difference when compared to a compliant form of development.  The minor departures result in a development that will have minimal impacts on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

·      The minor departures result in a development that will have minimal impacts on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

·      The stairwells and lift overrun providing protected access to roof top areas will facilitate a more convenient internal amenity for the occupants of the development without detriment to the surrounding amenity.

As such, the proposed development achieves the objectives of the height standard despite the strict minor numerical departures from the standard. It is unreasonable and unnecessary that the 12m-height limit apply in this instance.

 

The Environmental Planning Grounds which Justify Contravening the Development Standard

 

Sufficient environmental planning grounds exist to justify departure from the development standard on this occasion in that:

 

·      A BASIX certificate accompanies the proposed development, which inclusive of the departures from the height standard satisfies the relevant requirements of the SEPP in regard to water consumption, energy efficiency and thermal comfort.  It is considered that the proposal, and the justification provided in the applicant’s written request have sufficient planning merit.

·      The minor departures relate to portions of the building which will provide protection from the elements and the stair access from units will allow for improved levels of ambient light ingress to the 2nd floor units.

·      The impacts associated with the proposed development on surrounding amenity and notwithstanding the numerical departures from the height standard are sustainable.

The Public Interest/Consistency with the Objectives of the Standard and the objectives for development within the zone

 

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives a) and c) of the standard in that the built form is consistent with the desired future character of the area and the proposed development (inclusive of the minor departures) will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

 

The objectives of the R3 Medium Residential zone 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.

Clause 2.3 (2) of the RLEP requires that Council must have regard to the objectives for development in a zone when determining development application in respect of land within the zone.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of the zone in that:

 

·      It will provide an additional 8 dwelling units via a combination of dwelling types within a medium density residential environment, contributing to the provision for the housing needs of the community.

·      The height, bulk scale and design of the building provide a positive presentation to the streetscape in a form which will contribute to the desired future character of the area identified in the planning controls for the locality.

·      The additional 8 dwelling units will encourage housing affordability in a manner that includes adequate measures to ensure the protection of amenity for residents.

Conclusion

The proposed development is consistent the objectives of clause 4.6 of the RLEP of providing an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development and satisfies the considerations requiring assessment in the respective sub-clauses.

Departure from the standard on this occasion will achieve a better outcome for and from the proposed development, will not raise any matter of significance for State or Regional environmental planning and no public benefit will be served by maintaining the standard.

 

The justification for departure from the development standard is therefore worthy of support.

 

Comments:

The height variances will be of no significant consequence to the privacy implications of the development as they only relate to minor parts of structures rather than any openings, balconies, terraces or any other elements that would facilitate overlooking or emit/or potentially cause to emit offensive noise.  The variances relate to the northern section of a pergola structure, the upper section of the lift and main stairwell overrun and the top corner of two stairwell pop outs.  The variances will not result in any material overshadowing of any neighbouring windows or private open spaces.  They will not add any distinct bulk and scale to the development, nor would they significantly impact on the compatibility of the whole development with the desired future character.  The elements will be setback from the building elevations and thus not be readily visible from the street level.  As discussed in the section ‘Views’ below, no unreasonable impact will result due to the non-compliances.

 

Clause 4.6 (1) in the Randwick LEP 2012 has the following objectives:

 

(a) to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development,

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

 

With reference to the objectives of Clause 4.6, the degree of the height variation is acceptable as the pergola structure, the upper section of the lift and main stairwell overruns and the top corner of two stairwell pop outs will not result in any adverse impacts on visual massing, bulk and scale and nor will they facilitate any adverse privacy impacts.  They will achieve a better outcome.  In particular, providing fixed and covered access to the roof top terraces will meet the recommendations of the UDRP and achieve related BCA requirements for fire exits.  The pergola structure will enable adequate sun control to improve the amenity of the area.  The lift access to the communal terrace which will ensure an accessible common open space is provided on the site to satisfy the obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.  (NB:  The pathway to the rear common open space will not lend itself to achieving the accessibility provisions particularly given the provision of steps).

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be satisfactory. In this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

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

 

The portion of the building that breaches the height limit will not be contrary to any of the planning objectives for the locality.  It will 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 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 building height standard which are:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

The proposed development will be in the public interest as it will maintain consistency with the objectives of the standard and zone in comparison to a compliant situation, particularly given the following

 

·           The height variances will be of no significant consequence to the privacy implications of the development as they only relate to minor parts of structures rather than any openings, balconies, terraces or any other elements that would facilitate overlooking or emit/ or potentially cause to emit offensive noise.

·           The variances will not result in any material overshadowing of any neighbouring windows or private open spaces.

·           The variances will not add any distinct bulk and scale to the development, nor would they significantly impact on the compatibility of the whole development with the desired future character.  The non-compliant elements will be setback from the building elevations.  The elements (in particular the main stairwell overrun) will add to the visual interest of the building and articulation along the west side elevation.

·           As discussed below, no unreasonable impact will result to any views as a result of the non-compliances.

·           The variances will facilitate a better outcome in terms of providing fixed and covered access to the roof top terraces, essential staircase/lift access to meet related BCA requirements for fire exits and a pergola structure for adequate sun control.

·           The development will be consistent with the current scale and character of built forms within the locality and reflect the desired future character.  With reference to the comments provided by the UDRP, the development will provide a suitable impact.

·           The development will cater for the existing demand for housing within a medium density residential environment.

·           The proposal encourages a variety of housing by incorporating well-sized one and two bedroom units which are likely to yield to a professional market. The development is likely to provide a more affordable form and range of housing for this market, as opposed to the cost of any semi-detached, dwelling house and townhouse developments within the same locality.

·           The development will provide variety via the number of bedrooms and apartment types/layouts.

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 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.

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 on two (2) separate occasions, on being during the period of 14 January 2015 - 29 January 2015 and the other being during the period of 21 January 2015 - 04 February 2015. 

 

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

 

·           1/74 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           70 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           72 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           68 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           66 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           44 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

·           5/317 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Table 2 | Objectors Issues (First Notification Period)

Issue

Comment

Shadow Diagrams

·        The architectural plans submitted show the subject site as 215 instead of 315 Maroubra Road.

·        The Shadow Study does not detail the rear properties and therefore provides a misleading shadow to the rear properties from the subject site and from 311-313 Maroubra Road.

 

·        The Site Plan does not provide accurate rear and side boundary dimensions and indicates that there are trees at the rear of the subject site which is misleading as the applicant has advised the trees will be removed.

 

·        Due to the height of the RFBs along Maroubra Road, the overshadowing will be a major issue in winter for the rear property.

 

 

The error in the address has been acknowledged.  This has not impacted on the assessment of the application.

 

As discussed through email threads between Council and the applicants representative (based on the submissions by 66-72 Haig Street, Maroubra), the following amendments have been made:

 

Notification Plan:

·        Clearly show the site coverage including dimensions.

The site plan has been clearly shown with RLs and the necessary calculations have been provided. Details of the dimensions are evident on the full set of amended A1 plans.  The details have been noted and considered in this assessment.

 

·        Indicate trees sought to be retained/removed.

The trees are shown on the notification plan.  A footnote states they will all be removed.  This has been confirmed by the applicant.

Shadow Plans

·        Correct the labelling of site numbering

The Site numbers have been amended.

 

·        Show the rear boundary

Rear boundary has been indicated on amended shadow diagrams.

 

·        Show the shadows cast by 311-313 and 317 Maroubra Road (cumulative impacts are required to be assessed).

Amended diagrams have been submitted which indicate the shadows cast by 311-313 and 317 Maroubra Road.  The cumulative impact has been considered in the assessment and discussed in the accompanying compliance report and section below ‘Solar Access’. 

 

·        Show 12pm noon shadows on the plan and elevation form with particular reference to the rear whose north facing windows may be impacted.

The impact on the rear properties has been considered in the assessment of the development application.  Reference should be made to the RDCP table in the compliance report and section below ‘Solar Access’. 

 

·        Show the shadows on the hour every hour between 8am – 4pm on June 21st.

Necessary details have been submitted to enable a proper assessment to be undertaken.

 

·        Ensure the shadow diagrams are in a consistent format.

The shadow diagrams provide necessary details and are at a scale to enable proper consideration of the impact.

Documentation

The inaccurate plans are to be removed from Council’s website and replaced with amended documentation.  The notification period is to be extended by 14 days from the date the correct plans are to be submitted.

 

The development application has been renotified with further details and amendments.

 

Subsequent to the re-notification, the applicant has submitted further information and amendments.

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The balconies and windows of the proposed development at 315 Maroubra Road will look into the 72 Haig Street and the adjoining neighbours.

 

 

The visual and acoustic privacy have been addressed in the Section below ‘Loss of Visual Privacy’ and ‘Loss of Acoustic Privacy - Roof Top Terraces’.

 

The following will provide adequate screening and obstruct downward views into the properties along Haig Street:

 

1.     Proposed screen planting along the rear boundary will be evergreen, extend along the entire rear boundary and achieve a similar screening function as per the existing trees, i.e. they will have a similar height, canopy spread and density.  A condition is recommended to ensure they are mature planting.

2.     Recent amendments have been made to the plans to provide an increased planter box wall height of 1.3m.  The top of the parapet wall will increase to an RL of 61.  As illustrated in the amended Section A-A plan (amendment dated 3/6/2015), downward views from the southern side of the rear roof top terrace (in particular views into upper level openings of the dwellings along Haig Street) will be obstructed.  A condition is recommended to ensure that the planter structure along the southern side is at least 1m in width and the finished floor level of the rear terrace is at RL 59.7.

3.     Screen planting will be required to be maintained. In this regard a maintenance plan must be prepared and submitted detailing maintenance arrangements for the following aspects as a minimum:

-    Inspection and maintenance of water proofing roof membrane.

-    Drainage.

-    Care of plants.

-    Maintenance of irrigation. 

A condition is recommended to be included in a consent accordingly. 

 

4.     The proposed solid balustrade with translucent glazing above (up to a combined height of 1.6m from the balcony level) along the southern sides of each balcony on the rear elevation (i.e. of units 6 and 9).  A condition is recommended to ensure the 1.6m height is provided from the finished floor level of each balcony.

Air-conditioning units are to not be on the external wall of the building as it will cause noise to the neighbours.

A condition is recommended to ensure that any external units meet the standard criteria and/or be restricted in operation. 

The roof terrace of neighbouring RFBs currently present noise and the addition of adding a roof terrace to the proposed development will present similar issues.

 

The applicant has recently provided amended plans that indicate the following measures which would assist in reducing the acoustic  impact:

 

-     Decrease to the area of each terrace via increased side setbacks. 

-     Provision of higher, solid planter parapets around the rear and front terraces.

-     Provision of privacy/acoustic screens to the sides of the common roof terrace.  A condition is recommended to ensure that specifications be submitted with a Construction Certificate to verify that the frosted glazing will consist of noise reducing qualities.

 

To further control the acoustic impact, a condition is recommended to be included in a consent to restrict the hours of use of the terraces to the following and for a strata management plan relating to the building include by-laws accordingly.

 

§  8am to 10:00pm during weekdays and on Sundays.

§  7am to midnight on Saturdays and public holidays.

A dilapidation report is required due to the request to remove the landscaping at the rear of 315 Maroubra Road and due to the ground being made of sand; the rear neighbour is concerned of the fence and garden collapsing.

It is recommended that a condition be included in a consent to require dilapidation reports on all neighbouring properties within the excavation zone of influence.  The report must be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of works. 

The acoustics of the RFBs that are currently there are loud and with another RFB added, the noise will be even louder.

The development will provide a residential use that is consistent with the desired future character based on the zoning of the land and maximum FSR which aims to control on-site density.   The use is unlikely to result in any nuisance impacts that are not within the expectations of the desired future character and that would be well based to justify refusal on these grounds.

 

Building Envelope

Based on the inaccurate plans the proposed development appears to be taller than the neighbouring RFBs with a smaller setback to the front boundary.  The development should present the same height and setback as the neighbouring properties.  The height of the building will affect the streetscape and overshadowing.

The height represents an appropriate outcome as it will provide a sympathetic stepping from the higher built form on the adjoining property to the east to the lower built form on the adjoining property to the west.  The higher elements on the rooftop will not be readily distinct from the street level given their setbacks from the outer walls.

 

The majority of the built form will be well within the 12m height limit with the exception of the minor rooftop elements listed below: 

- Northern side of the rooftop pergola.

- Lift Shaft   (upper section)

- Stairwell Overruns (top corner).

 

The variances that will be created by the elements have been addressed in the ‘Clause 4.6’ assessment. The resultant setbacks of the structures from the building facades will limit the imposition on the streetscape and impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

The front boundary setback has been addressed in the section below ‘Front Setback’ and the accompanying DA Compliance Report.

Landscaping

Landscaping of tall trees will affect the overshadowing and views of the neighbours.

An amended Landscape Plan has been submitted as part of the amended application showing the ground level and roof terrace planting schedules. 

Most submissions have raised concerns to the removal of the existing screen trees at the rear of the site.  The applicant has provided amendments that indicate alternate rear boundary planting to that originally proposed.  The planting will be satisfactory as it will extend along the entire rear boundary, be evergreen, and achieve a similar screening function as per the existing trees, i.e. be similar in height, canopy spread and density.  Since the replacement trees will be similar in nature to the existing, there will be no significant additional overshadowing and view loss impacts in comparison to the existing situation.

 

The Development Application was renotified and the new notification period was the 21 January 2015 to 04 February 2015.  The following submissions were received as a result of the second notification process:

 

·           1/74 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           2/74 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           70 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           72 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           68 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           66 Haig Street, Maroubra

·           44 Kingsford Street, Maroubra

·           2/311-313 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·           4/311-313 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·           10/311-313 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

·           5/317 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Table 3 | Objectors Issues (Second Notification Period)

Issue

Comment

Car Parking

·        The Statement of Environmental Effects shows an inconsistency of the amount of car spaces that are provided in the basement car park.  Page 5 references 12 car spaces and Page 27 references 13 car spaces.

The car parking anomaly is noted and has been acknowledged in the assessment of the DA. 

Aesthetics / Urban Design

·        The Randwick LEP 2012 states that the objectives of the R3 zone are to ‘recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form elements’.

·        The neighbour property 311-313 Maroubra Road is said within the SEE to be ‘mishmash of poorly judged forms’ and 315 is of similar design

The Joint Randwick/Waverley Design Review Panel (UDRP) has reviewed the proposed development on 2 occasions.  Changes recommended by the UDRP have been adopted by the applicant.  The changes are discussed in the accompanying compliance report in Section 1.3 ‘SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development’. 

Roof Terraces

·        The Randwick LEP 2012 states that the objectives of the R3 zone are ‘to protect the amenity of residents’.  The proposal incorporates two separate pavilions which include roof top terraces and communal landscaped areas.

·        The residents of adjoining properties do not believe that is protects the amenity of them as stated in the SEE based on the roof terrace and ground floor common area.

 

Communal landscaped areas are required to be provided for multi-unit development under the provisions of both the NSW Residential Flat Design Code (RFDC) and Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013).

 

The applicant has provided further amendments to the terraces to address the acoustic and visual impacts on neighbouring properties.  The amended plans and amenity impacts have been addressed below under the section ‘Key Issues’. 

Proposal Description

·        The SEE states that there will be 8 additional dwellings, however says that it provide 9 units.

Taking into account the existing dwelling currently on the site, the DA proposes an additional 8 dwellings, thus totalling to 9.  Even though the proposal does not retain the existing dwelling, the amount of dwellings on the site will total 9 and therefore the SEE is correct.

Building Height

·        The Randwick LEP has a maximum height limit of 12m and the proposal exceeds the height limit by 1.18m.

·        This creates increasing shadow and privacy issues for the neighbouring properties

 

The variances to the height standard are identified and addressed in this report.  They have been considered with respect to the provisions of Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The height variances will be of no significant consequence to the privacy implications of the development as they only relate to minor parts of structures rather than any openings, balconies, terraces or any other elements that would facilitate overlooking or emit/ or potentially cause to emit offensive noise.  They will not result in any material overshadowing of any neighbouring windows or private open spaces.  They will not add any distinct bulk and scale to the development, nor would they significantly impact on the compatibility of the whole development with the desired future character.  The elements in excess of the height standard will be setback from the primary building elevations.  As discussed in the section ‘View Sharing’ below, no unreasonable impact will result due to the non-compliances.  The main overruns will add articulation.

Excavation

·        On Page 12 of the SEE it is stated that it is ‘highly unlikely that excavations will have detrimental effects’ on the ‘soil stability in the locality of the development’.

·        As Maroubra is built on sand dunes, the sand is not stable and therefore with the extensive excavation a dilapidation report is requested for 74 Haig Street prior to works.

 

A condition is recommended to ensure that a dilapidation report is submitted and relates to the neighbouring properties within the zone of influence.  The report must be submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of works.

 

Other standard conditions are also recommended relating to the structural adequacy of the built form and impacts on adjoining properties, e.g. Conditions to ensure all excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building are executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards; excavations are properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings; and certification is obtained from a professional engineer, which confirms that the building works will satisfy the relevant structural requirements of the Building Code of Australia and approved design documentation.

Screen Planting

·        Based on the Randwick DCP 2013 Part B5 Preservation of Trees and Vegetation, the SEE states that there are ‘no existing vegetation on site that is worth preservation’ and that ‘these tree…being suitable for removal and will be replaced with a more appropriate species as indicated on the landscape plan’.

·        The proposed frangipani trees and fern trees are considered inappropriate for sufficient screening.

·        There are no guarantees that the garden will be regularly maintained.

·        The residents surrounding the development make reference to the planter boxes being maintained on a regular basis and not being removed by the future residents of 315 Maroubra Road.

 

Council’s Landscape Development Officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no concerns to the removal of trees on the Site. 

 

The applicant has provided amended plans to address concerns with the originally proposed trees at the sites rear.  The trees proposed on the current scheme will be satisfactory as they will adopt a similar screening effect and amenity to the existing.  They will extend along the entire rear boundary, be evergreen, and provide a similar height, canopy spread and density.  A condition is recommended to ensure that the trees are mature species upon planting, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

With reference to maintaining the trees and planter box vegetation, it is recommended that a maintenance plan be submitted for the approval of Council. 

 

Regardless, the following will ensure that privacy control is not reliant on screen planting alone:

-     Amended plans have been submitted which indicate an increased planter parapet height of 1.3m measured from an RL of 59.7m (being the top of the lip parapet and terrace level) around the private roof top terrace of unit 9.  The top of the parapet wall will increase to an RL of 61. To restrict views of people in standing position on the neighbouring terrace at 311-313 Maroubra Road and downwards view to the southern neighbours, a condition is recommended to require the depth of the planter box along the western side to be increased to 2579mm and the planter box along the southern side to be increased to 1000mm (all measured from the inner face of the parapet walls).

-     A condition is recommended to require the restriction to the hours of use of upper level terraces from 8am - 10pm on weekdays and Sundays and 7am - midnight on Saturdays.  Any future strata management plan should include by-laws accordingly. 

-     Amended plans have been received which indicate an increased planter, parapet height of 1.33m measured from an RL of 58.2m around the private roof top terraces of Units 7 and 8.  The top of the parapet wall will increase to an RL of 59.53.  As illustrated on the amended plan Drawing Number DA – 03 (amendment dated 3/6/2015), downward views from the sides of the roof top terraces (in particular views into neighbouring upper level openings and terrace areas) will be limited.  To restrict views of people in standing position on the neighbouring terrace at 311-313 Maroubra Road, a condition is recommended to require the depth of the planter box along the western side to be increased to 2000mm measured from the inner face of the parapet wall.

-     Amended plans have been received which indicate privacy/acoustic screens to the sides of the common roof terrace.  A condition is recommended to ensure that specifications be submitted with a Construction Certificate to verify that the frosted glazing will consist of noise reducing qualities, if not double glazed. 

In addition, the solid balustrades with translucent glazing above proposed on the southern sides of each balcony on the rear elevation (i.e. of units 6 and 9) will ensure that there will be minimal reliance on planting to appropriately address overlooking.  However to facilitate natural ventilation whilst adequately addressing visual privacy impacts to the rear of properties along Haig Street , a condition is recommended to require the glazing to be replaced with horizontal, fixed, 45 degree angled louvres (i.e. angled upwards) that are spaced 10mm from each other.  The balustrade and louvres must achieve an overall 1.6m height from the finished floor level of each balcony.

 

Overlooking into Haig Street Properties

·        The southern facing balconies and roof terraces will have a direct sight line into the rear yards of the Haig Street residents.

Addressed above.

Balconies and Courtyards

·        The Randwick DCP requires balconies or courtyards included in the proposed development.

·        Having both balconies and courtyards is questioned by the neighbouring residents to have negative noise impacts and if limited to one per units then the overall building envelope can be reduced.

·        The southern facing balconies, roof patios and communal areas will increase the noise impacts.

The Randwick DCP states that a development is ‘to provide useful areas of private and communal open space for outdoor living and recreation’.  Therefore having balconies and courtyards fulfils the Randwick DCP objectives for private and communal open space.

 

The acoustic implication of the roof terraces and proposal in general has been discussed above and section below ‘Roof Top Terraces’.

Rear Setback

·        The proposed development meets the required minimum rear setback of the Randwick DCP of 7.35m setback.

·        Due to the height of the building the rear setback requirements should be considered to be larger.

The proposal complies with the Rear Setback control of the DCP, i.e. to provide a setback of 15% of the allotment depth (i.e. an average of 7.33m given the difference is side boundary lengths or 7.43m to the western side and 7.23 to the eastern side).  The height variances are discussed in the sections below ‘’Building Height’ and ‘External Wall Height’.

Roof Design

·        The Roof Design objectives in the Randwick DCP state that they are to ensure any recreational use of the roof…does not cause unreasonable privacy and noise impacts on the surrounding residents’

·        The residents of the surrounding properties are questionable about how the privacy and noise from the roof will be controlled and how to determine the limit of ‘unreasonable’

The DCP states that terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered if there are no direct sightlines to the habitable room windows and private open space of adjoining residences.  The recommended changes to the roof terraces, discussed above and in the sections below ‘Acoustic Privacy – Roof Top Terraces’ and ‘Visual Privacy’, will ensure the visual and acoustic privacy implications are adequately controlled.

Inaccurate Shadow Study

·        The Shadow Study is inaccurate and provides misleading shadows for 11am, 12pm and 1pm.

·        The Shadow Study does not show the shadows of 311-313 Maroubra Road and 317 Maroubra Road.

·        Through an objector measuring the shadow diagrams, the distances from 70-72 Haig Street to the fence line of 315 Maroubra Road are incorrect.

·        The Shadow study should provide accurate shadows from all three RFBs along Maroubra Road to show the shadows that the Haig Street residents will receive.

 

The applicant has provided amended diagrams which indicate the rear boundary and impacts of existing neighbouring building and the full extent of the overshadowing.  Appropriate details have been provided to enable the impact to be considered in the assessment of the proposal.

View Sharing

·        The Randwick DCP objective states to ensure the development ‘is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain’.

 

 

 

The impact to the views enjoyed from neighbouring properties, particularly from the roof top terraces at 311-313 Maroubra Road, will be satisfactory.  None of the elements that exceed the building height standard will impact on any significant views.  From the southern side of the rear terrace at 311-313 Maroubra Road, visible glimpses of water views will be maintained.  Only a section of a water view glimpse in standing position further north will be impacted.  This impact is acceptable given that water views further south on the same terrace will be maintained, the development achieves compliance with the rear setback and building height requirement for the rear wall elevation, district vegetation already obstructs the extent of the water views, and the subject terrace enjoys extensive 360 degree views that include the city skyline, botany bay district and district views to the north, south, west and east.  The extent of variance to the external wall height requirements will be minor.  The impact on views is discussed further below in the section ‘Key Issues’.

The proposal will adopt a similar building line to that of 319 Maroubra (white building) and therefore the water views from the view points of the roof top terrace (as indicated in the images above) at the rear of 311-313 Maroubra Road will not be affected.

Example of city views located in the opposite direction to the proposal.

From this view point (further north on the neighbouring terrace at 311-313 Maroubra Road) would a portion of the water view be obstructed.

Overdevelopment

·        Based on proposal, this will be an overdevelopment of the site.

·        Overdevelopment of the site depicted in the North Elevation of the Notification Plan; and the exceeding planning controls. 

The building envelope controls that will be exceeded by the proposed development is the building height and external wall height.  They are discussed in the sections below ‘building height’ and ‘external wall height’. 

Landscaping vs Solar Access

Tall trees will further block the sun from the courtyards of 311-313 Maroubra Road.

 

This matter has been addressed in the table above.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. 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.)

 

External Wall Height

Wall height” is the vertical distance as measured from the ground level (existing) to the topmost point of an external wall. The topmost point of an external wall is taken to be the underside of the eaves or the highest point of a parapet, and excludes gable ends and clerestory windows. For skillion or butterfly roofs, the highest point of the external wall is measured to the underside of the eave of the lower end of the roof. For dormer windows that protrude horizontally from the roof by 2m or more, external wall height is measured to the underside of the dormer eaves”.

 

If the external wall height measurement is based on a continuous wall height, then the development nearly achieves compliance with the 10.5m external wall height requirement along its rear pod section (east and west elevations) based on spot levels immediately below, albeit a mere 0.07m to the eastern side and 0.09m to the western side as a result of the recently amended parapet balustrade height.  Amended plans indicate an increased height of the terrace balustrade to an RL of 61 (to the top of the parapet wall).  This amendment has been made to address overlooking into the rear of the properties along Haig Street.  In the absence of this amendment, compliance would be achieve however the amendment is necessary to address overlooking and thus limit sightlines into the rear of neighbouring properties (including upper level openings on rear elevations).

 

(NB:  The submitted architectural plans indicate higher variances along this rear elevation.  The spot levels have been checked along the rear wall.  The existing RL to the east is 50.43 whilst that to the west is approx. 50.41). 

 

A maximum variance of 1.79m occurs on the west elevation in the location of the main stairwell overrun.  This variance will extend for a minimal length of 1.5m.  The submitted plans indicate a maximum variance of 2.3m along the east elevation in the location of the lift overrun.  This will also extend for a minimal length of 2.4m along the elevation.

 

The former version of the submitted plan indicated that the front pod section will result in a variance of 0.39m to 0.6m along its west elevation and 0.17m to 0.4m along its east elevation.  Recently amended plans have increased the variances as a result of increases to the planter parapets around the building.  The increases are minimal and necessary to provide appropriate screening and address concerns with overlooking.  The variance to the front pod section will be 0.8 m to 0.93m along its west elevation and 0.7m to 0.83m along its east elevation given the slope of the land to Maroubra Road to the northwest (with the lowest points of the site being located here).

 

The variances are accepted in this case given:

 

·           They are minor except in the location of the main stairwell and lift overruns. 

·           The main stairwell and lift overruns are important to achieving BCA compliance, and DDA compliance in the case of the lift overrun. The elements will adds to the visual interest of the built form and provide both vertical and horizontal articulation without adding any undue bulk and scale distinct to the streetscape.  Both elements are limited in width and setback from Maroubra Road.  Accordingly the design outcome will be consistent with the objective for external wall height providing for interesting roof forms and compatibility with the streetscape.

·           Requiring a reduction in wall height to achieve compliance will either result in a reduction to the balustrade around the rooftop terraces and reduction in floor–to-ceiling heights.  The first will result in a non-compliance with the minimum balustrade heights under the BCA / safety issues and the second will reduce floor-to-ceiling heights below the standard requirement and impact on the objective for external wall height ‘to promote light and quality interior spaces’.  The external wall height control has been devised to ensure adequate floor to ceiling height and realistic floor slab and roof construction.  The variances around the building perimeter are necessary to achieve these outcomes.

·           Given the treatment of the overruns and minimal extent of variances around the building, the impact to the overall bulk and scale of development will be appropriate.  The overruns will represent a better design solution and thus requiring strict compliance will hinder the design outcome.  The other variances will be of little consequence to the bulk and scale in comparison to a compliant situation and are a result of the land slope rather than an increase in wall height.  The front section of the building has been stepped down in comparison to the rear to reflect the fall of the land.

·           No substantial overshadowing and view implications will result given the setbacks of the overruns from the building elevations and minor extent of variances around the building perimeter.  The rear elevation will almost achieve compliance with the external wall height control despite its greater potential to contribute to view and overshadowing impacts.  The variances will be very minor as to result in any material impacts, i.e. 0.07m to the eastern side and 0.09m to the western side.  They are a result of changes to the balustrade to appropriately control overlooking.

·           The terraces have been amended to ensure that privacy implications will be reasonably controlled and thus the variances resulting from the terrace balustrades screening are acceptable.

·           The outcome will not be contrary to the purpose of the external wall height control ‘to provide a suitable number of storeys’.  The variances will not add an additional storey in comparison to a compliant situation. 

 

Loss of Visual Privacy

Most openings (including balconies) on the eastern and western side elevations will be appropriately treated to minimise visual privacy impacts.  The treatments will include translucent glazing, blade walls, screening, and building separations.  To minimise direct sightlines into neighbouring properties from the kitchen windows on the side elevations of Units 4, 5, 7 and 8, a condition is recommended to require opaque glazing to at least the lower pane of each window and the lower pane to be fixed. 

 

Most submissions have raised concerns to the removal of the existing screen trees at the rear of the site.  Council’s Landscape Development Officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no concerns to their significance.  Nevertheless, any replacement trees need to provide a similar screening effect to minimise loss of visual privacy and maintain the amenity.  The applicant has provided amended landscape plans that indicate alternate rear boundary planting to that originally proposed to address concerns with maintaining a screening effect, similar to the existing situation.  The planting will be satisfactory as it will extend along the entire rear boundary, be evergreen, and achieve a similar screening function as per the existing trees, i.e. be similar in height, canopy spread and density.  A condition is recommended to require the new trees to be mature upon planting. (NB:  Requiring replacement trees to be similar in nature will avoid any undue, additional overshadowing and view loss impacts in comparison to the existing situation).  A condition is also recommended to require the screen planting to be appropriately maintained.  A maintenance plan is to be submitted with an application for a construction certificate detailing maintenance arrangements. 

 

Reliance on screen planting as the only means of controlling privacy is not satisfactory.  The applicant has incorporated the following changes to the plans to address concerns with loss of privacy from the proposed roof top terraces and minimise reliance on appropriate maintenance of screen planting.

 

·           An increased planter parapet height of 1.3m measured from an RL of 59.7m (being the terrace level).  The increased height will extend around the rear private roof top terrace of unit 9.  The top of the parapet wall will increase to an RL of 61. To restrict views of people in standing position on the neighbouring terrace at 311-313 Maroubra Road and downwards view to the southern neighbours, a condition is recommended to require the planter box along the western side to be increased to 2579mm and the depth of the planter box along the southern side to be increased to 1000mm (all measured from the inner face of the parapet walls).

·           Restriction to the hours of use of upper level terraces from 8am - 10pm on weekdays and Sundays and from 7am - midnight on Saturdays.  Any future strata management plan should include by-laws accordingly. 

·           Reduce the area of each roof top terraces via increased planter box width and increased side separations from the useable terrace zone to neighbouring properties  The increased planter box width will restrict access up to the sides of the building and downward views.  As stated in the NSW Residential Flat Design Code, one objective of building separations is to provide adequate visual and acoustic impacts on neighbouring properties.

-     An increased parapet height of 1.33m measured from an RL of 58.2m around the front roof top terraces of Units 7 and 8.  The top of the parapet wall will increase to an RL of 59.53.  As illustrated on the amended Drawing Number DA – 03 (amendment dated 3/6/2015), downward views from the sides of the roof top terraces (in particular views into neighbouring upper level openings and terrace areas) will be limited.  To restrict views of people in standing position on the neighbouring terrace at 311-313 Maroubra Road, a condition is recommended to require the depth of the planter box along the western side to be increased to 2000mm measured from the inner face of the parapet wall. 

·           Provision of privacy/acoustic screens to the sides of the common roof terrace.  A condition is recommended to ensure that specifications be submitted with a Construction Certificate to verify that the frosted glazing will consist of noise reducing qualities. 

·           Erection of a solid balustrade with translucent glazing above, on each balcony on the rear elevation (i.e. of units 6 and 9).  However to facilitate natural ventilation whilst adequately addressing visual privacy impacts to the rear of properties along Haig Street , a condition is recommended to require the glazing to be replaced with horizontal, fixed, 45 degree angled louvres (i.e. angled upwards) that are spaced 10mm from each other.  The balustrade and louvres must achieve an overall 1.6m height from the finished floor level of each balcony.

The difference between the proposed ground level at the rear (RL50.5) and the top of the neighbouring side wall (directly adjacent) 311-313 Maroubra Road will only be 900mm.  Further to the north the ground level is proposed to be at RL 49.  The submitted survey plan indicates the planters at 311-313 Maroubra Road, directly adjacent to this section, achieve an RL of 50.6 to 50.28 as they extend from south to north (up to the proposed driveway).  The difference between the proposed RL of 49 and planter walls will be 1.6m to 1.28.  The later does not provide adequate screen fencing.

 

To ensure that there is no overlooking from the rear ground level terraces/outdoor spaces due to the proposed levels around the building (i.e. existing RL’s are proposed to be changed within the building line setback), a condition is recommended to require the erection of new side fencing to a height of 1.8m measured from the finished ground levels (inclusive of any retaining walls/(or portions of).  The fencing must be erected adjacent to the common boundary, step down the site in response to the terracing and be wholly on the subject site.  The location will ensure the fencing will provide effective screening, being located on the higher side of the boundary. 

 

Building Separations

 

Based on the minimum side setback requirement of 2.5m, the RDCP 2013 suggests that a building separation of at least 5m is expected.  The proposed building separations are generally as indicated in Table 2 below:

Table 2| Building Separation Measurements

Level

East Side

West Side

Ground Level

5.9m - 8.7m

5.7m –11.3m

First Floor Level

5.6m – 7.3m

4.8m  (blade wall)

5.9m – 10.7m

4.5m (blade wall)

Second Floor Level

5.9m - 7.3m

4.4m (blade wall)

6.2m – 11.8m

5.3m (blade wall)

Terraces (Trafficable Area)

7.5m – 9.4m

8.1m – 11.6m

 

The instances where a separation of less than 5m is proposed only relates to the angled blade wall sections.  These sections are acceptable given:

 

§  The extents of the variances are minimal as to result in any additional impacts in comparison to a compliant situation. 

§  The variances will provide effective screening and orientation of window outlooks towards the street to minimise privacy impacts on adjacent properties.  This outcome reflects an objective for providing adequate building separations. 

§  The projections will be minor in comparison to the whole building elevations and therefore will be of minimal consequence to maintaining adequate spacing between neighbouring buildings. 

§  The projections will not be provided at ground floor level and thus will not reduce any landscaped area/open spaces. 

 

As required by the Joint Randwick/Waverley Design Review Panel, a condition is recommended to require the side setbacks of the blade walls at second floor level to be further setback as per those indicated at first floor level.

 

Recent amendments to the roof top terraces have increased the building separation from trafficable roof top areas to neighbouring features such as terraces, balconies and openings.  As stated in the NSW Residential Flat Design Code, one objective of building separations is to provide adequate visual and acoustic impacts on neighbouring properties.  The increased separations, (together with other minimisation measures discussed in the sections below ‘Acoustic and Visual Privacy’) will assist in reducing privacy implications.

 

Acoustic Privacy

 

In general, the development will provide a residential use that is consistent with the desired future character based on the zoning of the land and maximum FSR standard which aims to control on-site density.  The use is unlikely to result in any nuisance impacts that are not within the expectations of the desired future character and that would provide well-based grounds for refusal of the development as a whole. 

To minimise and control impacts from the use and operation of ancillary service facilities, conditions are recommended to require the following:

 

§  Ensure that all air conditioning units and rainwater tanks meet the standard noise emission criteria and/or be adequately sound proofed.  In circumstances where this cannot be achieved, restricted hours of use are recommended.

§  Noise emission must not give rise to offensive noise as defined in the ‘Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997’  and relevant regulations.

§  Report / correspondence be prepared by a suitably qualified person (prior to obtaining a construction certificate), that demonstrates noise and vibration from service equipment will satisfy the relevant provisions of the ‘Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997’ and relevant regulations, guidelines and approval conditions.

 

Many objections raised concerns to the proposed rooftop terraces especially in relation to acoustic impacts.  Requiring deletion of all the terraces is not considered well-based given the following:

 

·           Council’s DCP does not contain any restrictions/prohibitions to roof top terraces for residential flat buildings. 

·           The UDRP has advised they ‘strongly support the combination of communal and private roof terraces.  Planters have appropriately been provided along all side boundaries to limit overlooking. The neighbour to the west also has extensive roof terraces, and the Panel believes they will add significant benefit for future residents’.

·           The communal terrace will provide the only accessible common open space that is necessary to ensure equitable access is provided to all and obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 are met.  (NB:  The rear communal terrace will not be accessible).

·           The terraces will promote view sharing initiatives of the RDCP 2013.

 

Regardless of the above, measures are necessary to adequately control the acoustic impact.  The applicant has provided amended plans that incorporate the measures listed below that will reduce the impact.  In addition, a condition is recommended to limit the hours of use of the terraces (i.e. from 8am – 10pm Mondays to Fridays and Sundays and 7am-midnight on Saturdays) and appropriate by-laws be included in a Strata Management Plan for the building.  The hours will restrict use during the more sensitive timeframes.

 

·           Increased planter wall heights around roof top terraces to the front and rear.  The planter walls will be solid and is therefore are expected to provide some noise absorption. 

·           Decrease to the area of each terrace via increased planter box widths and/or increased side separations from the useable terrace zone to neighbouring properties.  As stated in the NSW Residential Flat Design Code, one objective of building separations is to provide adequate visual and acoustic impacts on neighbouring properties.

·           Provision of privacy/acoustic screens to the sides of the common roof terrace.  A condition is recommended to ensure that specifications be submitted with a Construction Certificate to verify that the frosted glazing will consist of noise reducing qualities.

 

The internal apartment layouts in most instances separate noisier spaces from quieter spaces via grouping of like areas.  In some instances the bedrooms of some units are located directly adjacent to their own primary open space (where that primary open space has direct access from the main living area).  This is acceptable as it does not relate to a neighbouring bedroom.  In any instances where bedroom windows are adjacent to primary open spaces or main living room windows of any adjacent units (i.e. in the case of Bedroom 1 of Units 1 and 2), double glazing should be provided to the bedroom openings.  A condition is recommended accordingly.  A condition is also recommended to ensure seals are provided at doors.

 

Loss of Visual Privacy

 

Most openings (including balconies) on the eastern and western side elevations will be appropriately treated to minimise visual privacy impacts.  The treatments will include translucent glazing, blade walls, screening, and building separations.  To minimise direct sightlines into neighbouring properties from the kitchen windows on the side elevations of Units 4, 5, 7 and 8, a condition is recommended to require opaque glazing to at least the lower pane of each window. 

 

Most submissions have raised concerns to the removal of the existing screen trees at the rear of the site.  Council’s Landscape Development Officer has reviewed the proposal and raised no concerns to their significance.  Nevertheless, any replacement trees need to provide a similar screening effect to minimise loss of visual privacy and maintain the amenity.  The applicant has provided amended landscape plans that indicate alternate rear boundary planting to that originally proposed to address concerns with maintaining a screening effect, similar to the existing situation.  The planting will be satisfactory as it will extend along the entire rear boundary, be evergreen, and achieve a similar screening function as per the existing trees, i.e. be similar in height, canopy spread and density.  A condition is recommended to require the new trees to be mature upon planting. (NB:  Requiring replacement trees to be similar in nature will avoid any undue, additional overshadowing and view loss impacts in comparison to the existing situation).  A condition is also recommended to require the screen planting to be appropriately maintained.  A maintenance plan is to be submitted with an application for a construction certificate detailing maintenance arrangements.

 

Reliance on screen planting as the only means of controlling privacy is not satisfactory.  The applicant has incorporated the following changes to the plans to address concerns with loss of privacy from the proposed roof top terraces and minimise reliance on appropriate maintenance of screen planting.

 

·           An increased planter parapet height of 1.3m measured from an RL of 59.7m (being the terrace level).  The increased height will extend around the rear roof top terrace.  The top of the parapet wall will increase to an RL of 61.  As illustrated in the amended Section A-A plan (amendment dated 3/6/2015), downward views from the southern side of the rear roof top terrace (in particular views into upper level openings of the dwellings along Haig Street) will be obstructed.  A condition is recommended to ensure that the planter along the southern side is at least 1m in width and the finished floor level of the rear terrace is no higher than RL 59.7.

·           Restriction to the hours of use of upper level terraces from 8am - 10pm on weekdays and Sundays and from 7am - midnight on Saturdays.  Any future strata management plan should include by-laws accordingly. 

·           Decrease to the area of each terrace via increased planter box width and increased side separations from the useable terrace zone to neighbouring properties  The increased planter box widths will restrict access up to the sides of the building and downward views.  As stated in the NSW Residential Flat Design Code, one objective of building separations is to provide adequate visual and acoustic impacts on neighbouring properties.

·           An increased planter, parapet height of 1.33m measured from an RL of 58.2m around the front roof top terraces of Units 7 and 8.  The top of the parapet wall will increase to an RL of 59.53.  As illustrated on the amended Drawing Number DA – 03 (amendment dated 3/6/2015), downward views from the sides of the roof top terraces (in particular views into neighbouring upper level openings and terrace areas) will be limited.  To restrict views of people in standing position on the neighbouring terrace at 311-313 Maroubra Road, a condition is recommended to require the parapet height to be 1.5m in height measured from an RL of 58.2m.  The top of the parapet wall will need to achieve an RL of 59.7.

·           Provision of privacy/acoustic screens to the sides of the common roof terrace.  A condition is recommended to ensure that specifications be submitted with a Construction Certificate to verify that the frosted glazing will consist of noise reducing qualities.  To restrict views of people in standing position on the neighbouring terrace, a condition is recommended to require the parapet height to be 1.5m in height measured from an RL of 58.2m.  The top of the parapet wall will need to achieve an RL of 59.7.

·           Erection of a solid balustrade with translucent glazing above, on each balcony on the rear However to facilitate natural ventilation whilst adequately addressing visual privacy impacts to the rear of properties along Haig Street , a condition is recommended to require the glazing to be replaced with horizontal, fixed, 45 degree angled louvres (i.e. angled upwards) that are spaced 10mm from each other.  The balustrade and louvres must achieve an overall 1.6m height from the finished floor level of each balcony.

The difference between the proposed ground level at the rear (RL50.5) and the top of the neighbouring side wall (directly adjacent) 311-313 Maroubra Road will only be 900mm.  Further to the north the ground level is proposed to be at RL 49.  The submitted survey plan indicates the planters at 311-313 Maroubra Road, directly adjacent to this section, achieve an RL of 50.6 to 50.28 as they extend from south to north (up to the proposed driveway).  The difference between the proposed RL of 49 and planter walls will be 1.6m to 1.28.  The later does not provide adequate screen fencing.

 

To ensure that there is no overlooking from the rear ground level terraces/outdoor spaces due to the proposed levels around the building (i.e. existing RL’s are proposed to be changed within the building line setback), a condition is recommended to require the erection of new side fencing to a height of 1.8m measured from the finished ground levels (inclusive of any retaining walls/(or portions of).  The fencing must be erected adjacent to the common boundary, step down the site in response to the terracing and be wholly on the subject site.  The location will ensure the fencing will provide effective screening, being located on the higher side of the boundary. 

 

Loss of Acoustic Privacy

In general, the development will provide a residential use that is consistent with the desired future character based on the zoning of the land and maximum FSR standard which aims to control on-site density.  The use is unlikely to result in any nuisance impacts that are not within the expectations of the desired future character and that would provide well-based grounds for refusal of the development as a whole. 

 

To minimise and control impacts from the use and operation of ancillary service facilities, conditions are recommended to require the following:

 

·           Ensure that all air conditioning units and rainwater tanks meet the standard noise emission criteria and/or be adequately sound proofed. 

·           Noise emission must not give rise to offensive noise as defined in the ‘Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997’ and relevant regulations.

·           Report / correspondence be prepared by a suitably qualified person (prior to obtaining a construction certificate), that demonstrates noise and vibration from service equipment will satisfy the relevant provisions of the ‘Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997’  and relevant regulations, guidelines and approval conditions. 

Many objections raised concerns to the proposed rooftop terraces especially in relation to acoustic impacts.  Requiring deletion of all the terraces is not considered well-based given the following:

 

·           Council’s DCP does not contain any restrictions/prohibitions to roof top terraces for residential flat buildings. 

·           The UDRP has advised they ‘strongly support the combination of communal and private roof terraces.  Planters have appropriately been provided along all side boundaries to limit overlooking. The neighbour to the west also has extensive roof terraces, and the Panel believes they will add significant benefit for future residents’.

·           The communal terrace will provide the only accessible common open space that is necessary to ensure equitable access is provided to all and obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) are met.  (NB:  The rear communal terrace will not be accessible with respect to the DDA).

Regardless of the above factors, measures are necessary to adequately control the acoustic impact.  The applicant has provided amended plans that incorporate the measures listed below that will assist in reducing the impact.  In addition, a condition is recommended to limit the hours of use of the terraces and appropriate by-laws be included in a Strata Management Plan for the building (as discussed above).  The hours will restrict use during the more sensitive timeframes.

 

·           Increased planter wall heights around roof top terraces to the front and rear.  The planter walls will be solid and is therefore are expected to provide some noise absorption. 

·           Decrease to the area of each terrace via increased planter box widths &/or increased side separations from the useable terrace zone to neighbouring properties.  As stated in the NSW Residential Flat Design Code, one objective of building separations is to provide adequate visual and acoustic impacts on neighbouring properties.

·           Provision of privacy/acoustic screens to the sides of the common roof terrace.  A condition is recommended to ensure that specifications be submitted with a Construction Certificate to verify that the frosted glazing will consist of noise reducing qualities.

The internal apartment layouts in most instances separate noisier spaces from quieter spaces via grouping of like areas.  In some instances the bedrooms of some units are located directly adjacent to their own primary open space (where that primary open space has direct access from the main living area).  This is acceptable as it does not relate to a neighbouring bedroom.  In any instances where bedroom windows are adjacent to primary open spaces or main living room windows of any adjacent units, double glazing should be provided to the bedroom openings.  This is the case with bedroom 1 of Units 1 and 2.  A condition is recommended accordingly.

 

Motorbike and Accessible Parking Spaces

The car parking layout is generally satisfactory subject to a few changes that can be dealt with by way of conditions in a consent.  The main change being the conversion of two (2) adjacent spaces (preferably space 9 and 10) into a combined accessible/visitor space and a motorcycle parking space and allocation of an extra visitor space to meet the absolute minimum visitor parking requirement.

 

This change will ensure the motorbike and visitor space parking requirements of Council’s DCP and accessible parking requirement of the Australian Standard 2890.1 are met, without unduly consuming any absolute minimum resident spaces and visitor spaces.  (It is noted that the parking requirement adds up to 12 spaces if each total for resident spaces and visitor spaces are each rounded down).  As such it will be capable of allocating at least 1 space per unit and absorbing three spaces to achieve compliance with the minimum visitor (2 visitor spaces with one combined visitor/accessible space), motorbike and accessible parking space requirements.

 

Deep Soil Zone

 

The proposed development will be deficient in deep soil landscaping.  It proposes 15.8% (117.83m²) of deep soil area, despite its compliant landscape area which will be in excess of the minimum requirement.  This discrepancy is mainly due to the need for paving for access and maximising the on-site amenity/usability of communal areas.

 

The deficiency is accepted in this case given the following factors:

 

·           The paving will be within a landscaped setting.

·           The development will achieve compliance with the landscaped open space requirement of 50%.

·           The paving is necessary for access to the lobby from the front site entry and to meet the obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act.  It is also necessary for access to and functioning of the rear communal area.  Providing this area as a large deep soil zone will not lend itself to improving the onsite amenity and usability of the communal area.  In such a case it is likely to result in left over space.

·           The shortfall is also as a result of the paved private open spaces on the front elevation.  These private open spaces will improve the amenity of each unit as well as provide more useable areas for outdoor activities directly accessible from the main living area of each unit.  The spaces will ensure the minimum private open space requirements of the RFDC and RDCP for Units 1 and 2 are met.

·           If the paving consisted of a pervious surface then the area could constitute ‘deep soil’ as per definition, however permeable surfacing will not lend itself to meeting the access requirements and steps access is necessary within the rear section of the site to deal will gradient changes.

·           The landscape scheme (both soft and hard landscaping) will optimise usability and functioning of the Site to operate as an integrated system that will result in greater amenity for its users. Based on the above the development will achieve the objective ‘to improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design’.

·           The proposal will consist of onsite detention and rainwater tank retention that would assist in minimising runoff impacts.  Thus the proposal will achieve the objective to improve stormwater quality and reduce runoff.

·           The proposed deep soil areas will achieve the benefit of ‘supporting the healthy growth of large trees with large canopies’ as stated in the DCP. 

·           The Residential Flat Design Code acknowledges situations in suburban areas, where sites are built out.  In such instances, stormwater treatment must be integrated with the design of a scheme and sufficient soil depth should be provided to support large trees.  The Draft Apartment Design Guide requires only 10% of the site area (i.e. 74.47sqm) to be deep soil area.  The development would achieve this provided areas have a minimum dimension of 3m.  Regardless, both guides indicate that exceptions are satisfactory based on the performance of a scheme.  In this regard, strict compliance can be achieved by providing porous surfaces or no pathways, however this will be detrimental to the on-site amenity/ usability / of the development and surrounding spaces.

Front Boundary Setback

 

The plans have been amended, as requested, to redesign the front balconies and surrounding front elevation elements to provide lightweight structures in appearance as per the treatment applied to the front elevation of 319 Maroubra Road.  The redesign has reduced the emphasis of the balcony features and sense of enclosure.

The lightweight treatment will enable the front wall elevation to be more prevalent and form an obvious barrier.  The resultant setback of this wall will be 4.69m which is more than the minimum requirement of 3m set by RDCP 2013 and comparable to that of the adjoining properties and nearby development at 319 Maroubra Road.  (NB:  The development at 319 Maroubra Road provides a 4.5m setback and lightweight balcony structures).

 

In addition to the above, the applicant has amended the front elevation as per the recommendations of the UDRP.  Originally proposed timber battens have been deleted.  The panel advised that ‘the timber battens are oversized, and would be a waste of high quality material. Perhaps a lightweight timber or metal element would be more appropriate to perform the same purpose’.  This has assisted in reducing the emphasis created by elements forward of the front wall.

 

Building Separations / Side Setbacks

Based on the minimum side setback requirement of 2.5m, the RDCP 2013 suggests that a building separation of at least 5m is expected.  The building separations proposed are generally as indicated in Table 2 below:

 

Table 2| Building Separation Measurements

Level

East Side

West Side

Ground Level

5.9m - 8.7m

5.7m –11.3m

First Floor Level

5.6m – 7.3m

4.8m  (blade wall)

5.9m – 10.7m

4.5m (blade wall)

Second Floor Level

5.9m - 7.3m

4.4m (blade wall)

6.2m – 11.8m

5.3m (blade wall)

Terraces (Trafficable Area)

8.4m – 8.9m

8.3m – 11.5m

 

The instances where a separation of less than 5m is proposed only relates to the angled blade wall sections.  These sections are acceptable given:

 

§  The extents of the variances are minimal as to result in any additional impacts in comparison to a compliant situation. 

§  The variances will provide effective screening and orientation of window outlooks towards the street to minimise privacy impacts on adjacent properties.  This outcome reflects an objective for providing adequate building separations. 

§  The projections will be minor in comparison to the building elevations and therefore will be of minimal consequence to maintaining adequate spacing between neighbouring buildings. 

§  The projections will not be provided at ground floor level and thus will not reduce any landscaped area/open spaces. 

(NB:  As required by the Joint Randwick/Waverley Design Review Panel, a condition is recommended to require the side setbacks of the blade walls at second floor level to be as per those indicated at first floor level).

 

Solar Access

The proposal alone will maintain access to a large portion of rear landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings along Haig Street for at least a minimum of 3 hours between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.  However when this impact is combined with that of the existing neighbouring residential flat buildings, the overshadowing impact during the June 21 will be much greater.  Regardless, during the day there will be sections within the rear yards that will have some access to sunlight, however they will not meet the minimum 50% requirement.  These impacts are accepted as the impact on the rear of the properties along Haig Street is inevitable given:

 

·         The southern orientation of these properties with respect to the subject site.  Even a strictly compliant situation in terms of building height and external wall height wall would impact on the rear of these properties. 

·         Existing residential flat buildings along Maroubra Road already impact on the rear of the properties along Haig Street.  The development would add to the impact but the impact is acceptable given that the zoning of the land, desired future character and envelope controls allow a built form that would result in a similar impact.  The development would provide minor variances to the height controls along its rear and outer interfaces.  Greater building height variances would be setback from external elevations and further down the site.  The development would provide compliant side and rear setbacks.  The variance to the deep soil zone will not be a result of increased built upon area / bulk and scale but the need to add paving for usability.

·         The shadows diagrams indicate the impact during the winter solstice.  This represents the worst case scenario.

·         To materially reduce the additional overshadowing to the rear of the Haig Street properties would unreasonably constrain the development potential of the site and be contrary to the desire future character.

Some living areas and private open spaces at the lower levels of the neighbouring residential flat buildings will also be impacted as not to achieve the minimum of 3 hours access.  This is unavoidable, given the narrow site width, the neighbouring subdivision pattern and setbacks of existing built forms on neighbouring properties.  The development will achieve the minimum side setback requirement, except for a minor portion of angled sections at first and second levels, of little consequence to the overshadowing impact.  Given the limited width of the subject site, requiring further side setbacks would be of little benefit to the overshadowing impact and result in an undesirable narrow built form, uncharacteristic of the surrounding building forms and spacing between properties.

In particular restricting the rear boundary setback or side setbacks would not result in a consistent approach to the application of the solar amenity criteria, based on the approach already adopted by Council in the existing, more recent residential flat buildings nearby. 

 

 

Inconsistent Unit Numbers on Plans

Some of the unit numbers referenced on the following plans are inconsistent with the submitted floor plans:

 

§  ‘Unit Plan’ (DA-07 dated Feb 2014) at 1:50. The 1 bedroom plan in the top corner should be referenced as Units 1 and 2.  The 2 bedroom plan below should referenced Unit 5 and 8 and then Unit 4 and 7 ‘Mirror Reverse’.

§  Section A-A Plan (DA-04 dated Feb 2014), are inconsistent with the floor plans.  The above ground units closer towards Maroubra Road should be referenced Units 5 and 8 instead of Units 6 and 9.

§  Maroubra Rd Façade Detail Plan (DA-08 dated Feb 2014), are inconsistent with the floor plans.  Unit 6 and 9 should be marked Unit 5. and 8.

A condition is recommended to ensure the correct unit numbers are referenced on the plans and details be provided prior to obtaining a Construction Certificate.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The merit assessment indicates that the proposal will provide a reasonable outcome despite some variations particularly to the building height, external wall height and deep soil area.

 

The variances to the deep soil are not a result of excess built upon area (as compliance is achieved with the minimum landscaped open space requirement of the DCP) but the need to make surrounds functional / useable to increase the on-site amenity. 

 

The variances to the building height relate to roof-top structures (upper portions) that are setback from external wall elevations and therefore will not be readily distinct from street level or result in any undue overshadowing.  The external wall height variances mainly relate to the fall of the land, except for elements such as the lift and staircase overrun.  These elements are necessary to meet BCA and DDA provisions.   They are also an integral part of the building design.  They will add visual interest and articulation of the built form.  The setback of the elements from the rear of the building will minimise overshadowing of these elements.

 

The privacy impacts have been appropriately addressed by the applicant. Amended details have been submitted to provide adequate measures, particularly to the roof top terraces.  Subject to conditions, the acoustic and visual privacy impacts will be reasonable. 

 

The overshadowing impact is accepted in this case given the desired future character, constraints of the site given its narrow width of the site and separation of neighbouring residential flat buildings.  A strictly compliant building envelope would have a similar impact to that proposed, particularly to the rear of properties along Haig Street.

 

Based on the assessment of the development application is recommended for approval subject to conditions outlined in this report.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Building Height respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & 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/884/2014 for the construction of a residential flat building consisting of a total of nine (9) units above basement car parking consisting of a total of 13 car spaces, at No. 315 Maroubra Road, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

2.       The following plans are to be amended to be inconsistent with the approved floor plans (DA-01 and DA-02):

·           ‘Unit Plan’ (DA-07 dated Feb 2014) at 1:50. The 1 bedroom plan in the top corner should be referenced as Units 1 and 2.  The 2 bedroom plan below should referenced Unit 5 and 8 and then Unit 4 and 7 Mirror Reverse.

·           Section A-A Plan (DA-04 dated Feb 2014), are inconsistent with the floor plans.  The above ground units closer towards Maroubra Road should be referenced Units 5 and 8 instead of Units 6 and 9.

·           Maroubra Rd Façade Detail Plan (DA-08 dated Feb 2014), are inconsistent with the floor plans.  Unit 6 and 9 should be marked Unit 5. and 8.

Details shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA on approved Construction Certificate plans.

 

3.       The angled side blade walls at second floor level (of Units 7 and 8) must have the same side setback as the angled blade walls at first floor level.  Details shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA prior to obtaining a Construction Certificate.

 

4.       The window of Bedroom 1 of both Units 1 and 2 must consist of double glazing.  Details of compliance must be included in the construction certificate application and written confirmation of compliance is to be provided to Council’s Director of City Planning and the Certifying Authority prior to the construction certificate being issued.

 

5.       The kitchen windows on the side elevations (i.e. of Units 4,5,7 and 8) are to consist of fixed and obscured glazing to the lower pane of the window. 

 

6.       The translucent glazing above the balustrades (indicated on the plans) on the rear elevation of Units 6 and 9 must be replaced with horizontal, fixed, 45 degree, angled louvres (i.e. angled upwards) that are spaced 10mm from each other.  The balustrade and louvres must have a combined height of a minimum of 1.6m measured from the finished floor level of each balcony.

 

7.       All screen planting must be maintained at all times to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of City Planning.  A Maintenance Plan must be prepared and submitted for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning prior to a Construction Certificate being issued.  The Maintenance Plan must include arrangements for the following aspects (as a minimum):

 

§  Inspection and maintenance of waterproofing roof membrane.

§  Details of drainage and irrigation systems (preferably self-watering), including overflow provisions.

§  Details of the location, numbers and type of plant species.

§  Planting and maintenance procedures, including frequency and methodology of maintenance requirements.

§  Maintenance of irrigation.

 

All landscaping in the approved plan is to be completed prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued.  The maintenance plan must be complied with during occupation of the property.

 

The owner/strata body of the premises shall at all times comply with the ongoing maintenance requirements of the Maintenance Plan and shall promptly upon request produce a copy of the Plan to Council.

 

8.       The communal landscaped areas should include an area dedicated to onsite composting.  Details are to be provided on the landscape plans submitted with an application for a Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

9.       The screen planting along the rear boundary shall be mature size and height upon planting.  Details of the maturity of the screen planting are to be submitted for the approval of Council’s Director of City Planning prior to obtaining a construction certificate. 

 

10.     A specification or acoustic report must be submitted with an application for a Construction Certificate that verifies the frosted glazing around the common roof terrace consists of noise reducing qualities.

 

11.     The depth of the planter boxes on the private roof top terrace of Unit 9 shall be amended as follows:

 

·      The planter box along the western side of the terrace shall be increased to 2579mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall).

 

·      The planter box along the southern side of the terrace shall be increased to 1000mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall).

 

12.     The depth of the planter box along the western side of the private roof top terrace of unit 7 shall be increased to 2000mm (measured from the inner face of the parapet wall)

 

13.     New side fencing shall be erected to a height of 1.8m measured from the finished ground level around the building (inclusive of any retaining walls/(or portions of above the finished ground level) to the top of the fencing.  The fencing shall be erected adjacent to the common boundaries, be wholly on the subject site and step down the site in response to the terracing.  The cost of the fencing must be borne by the applicant. 

 

Details must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to obtaining a construction certificate.

 

USE OF COMMON AREAS AND FACILITIES

95.     Use of the roof top terraces must be limited to prevent disturbance to neighbouring residents:

 

·        8am to 10:00pm during weekdays and on Sundays.

·        7am to midnight on Saturdays and public holidays.

 

A strata subdivision certificate must not be issued in respect of a strata plan for the development unless it incorporates strata by-laws accordingly and an instrument under Section 88B of the Conveyancing Act 1919 that includes a restriction on use of the terrace areas as set out above.  The instrument under Section 88B cannot be varied without the approval of Council.  In addition, the by-laws and instrument referred to above must be registered prior to the issue of any occupation certificate for the development.

 

Visitor Parking

99.     Car parking spaces shall be allocated according to the following requirement and marked accordingly.  Any future strata scheme must be consistent with this allocation.

 

·      At least 1 space per unit and 2 visitor spaces.  This must include two (2) adjacent spaces (preferably spaces 9 and 10) being altered into a combined accessible/visitor space and a motorcycle and marked accordingly.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report for 315 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D49/15

 

Subject:                  6 Pearce Street, SOUTH COOGEE (DA/213/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/213/2015

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new part two part three storey dwelling house with rear swimming pool, boundary fence, associated site and landscaped works

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Ms C L Bellenger

Owner:                        Ms C L Bellenger

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview19473.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by external consultant and referred to Planning Committee for determination as the parent of a Council’s employee lives opposite the development.

 

 

Proposal

It is proposed to:

 

§  Demolish the existing dwelling house on the subject site.

§  Undertake earthworks primarily comprising excavation to provide a lower level partly below existing ground level and filling at the rear of the site.

§  Remove all existing vegetation and provide new landscaped surrounds, including one feature tree within the front building line setback.

§  Construct a new dwelling house consisting of 3 levels, 4 bedrooms and a garage with 2 car parking spaces.  The composition of each level is summarised in Table 1 below.  A raised, rear, terrace is proposed above part of the lower ground level (i.e. above the garage work shop/bin room).  A pool, garden area and planter boxes with wall surrounds are proposed behind th4e dwelling house, also at a raised level from the existing ground level.

 

The driveway location will be as per the existing location.  Use will be made of the existing crossover.  The existing front fence will be demolished and replaced with a new front fence and return along the western side boundary.

 

Table 1 | Building Composition

Level

 

Lower Level

Front Section

Storage zone

Bathroom

Laundry

Cellar

Stair access

Central Section

Garage for 2 car parking spaces

Rear Section

Garage Workshop / Bin Store

Water Tank Storage room

Pool Equipment room

Ground Floor Level

Front Section

Front entry

Stair case

Media room

Central Section

Living and dining room

Kitchen

Powder room

Rear Section (External)

Raised terrace

Raised swimming pool

Raised planter box surrounds

 

 

First Floor Level

Front Section

Bedroom 2 and 3

Stair case

Hallway

Bathroom

Rear Section

Master bedroom with ensuite and walk-in-robe

Powder Room

Bedroom 4

 

Subsequent to the notification of the development application, the applicant was requested by way of meeting held and letter dated 22 May 2015 to submit additional details and amended plans. The main amendments requested related to the following:

 

§  Provision of additional front boundary setback at ground floor level to match the neighbouring setback.

§  Compliance with the minimum side boundary setback provisions of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013).

§  Compliance with the rear setback requirement of RDCP and reconsideration of the massing and building footprint at the rear. 

§  Review of the overlooking impact to minimise the impact on the neighbouring properties 8 Pearce Street and 8 Crana Ave, particularly, as a result of the raised rear private open space (being closer to the neighbouring properties) and glazing along the northern, northeast sides of the proposed dwelling. 

§  Removal of the proposed encroachment on 8 Crana Ave.

 

On the 9 July 2015 the applicant submitted a written response to the requested details and amended plans which included the following:

 

§  An amended landscape plan illustrating a gate to allow for maintenance access to the rear planter. 

§  Provision of a stepped landscaped and fence response to reduce the height and visual bulk of the rear fence whilst also minimising the potential for overlooking impacts.

§  A reduced rear deck size at the eastern end to reduce potential overlooking.

§  A reduced external fence / wall height adjoining the northern / rear boundary.

§  Additional justification for the proposed front and side setbacks.

§  Confirmation of compliance with the Gross Floor Area, Site Coverage and Deep Soil area calculations, as illustrated on amended plans.

§  Confirmation of retained views to Number 4 and Number 7 Pearce Street.

§  Confirmation of plans demonstrating no encroachment onto adjoining properties.

§  Details of the front fencing, including height, materials and colours.

§  Updated shadow diagrams which indicate compliance with the DCP requirements.

§  Additional sections; and

§  An overlaying of floor plans.

 

Site and Surrounds

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 24285 and addressed as 6 Pearce Street, South Coogee. It is located on the northern side of Pearce Street and has a 12.8m frontage at this street. The side boundaries are 24.945m in length. The total area of the site, indicated on the submitted survey, is 319.3sqm.

The site consists of a two storey, dwelling house of face brick construction with a pitched, tiled, roof. A balcony is located along part of the front elevation at the first floor level. Another balcony is located on the rear level, also at first floor level. Below is a raised balcony with access from the ground level and rear yard via a set of steps.

 

There is vehicular access that extends from Pearce Street and along the eastern side of the site which leads to a concrete paved area at the corner of the site.

 

Contours provided on the submitted survey plan indicate that the site has a distinct cross fall from its front, southwest, corner to its rear northeast corner of approximately 4.4m i.e. over a distance of approximately 28m. The general fall from side boundary to side boundary is approximately 2m, whereas from the front to the rear boundary is 2.7m along the western side boundary and 2.85m along the eastern side boundary.

 

There are no significant trees on the subject site. Paving is limited to the tiled front entry pathway within the front building line setback; concrete strips within the eastern building line setback and a concrete area at the rear, northeast, corner of the site.

 

The site is fenced along all sides. Paling fence generally extends behind the front building line setback, along the side boundaries, as well as along the rear boundary. Fencing forward of the front building line consists of a stone retaining wall to the west and brick wall to the east. The front fence is a low lying brick wall that steps down to the east.

 

The submitted survey plan indicates a sewer main that extends from the street and across the neighbouring property to the east (8 Pearce Street). It is within proximity to the eastern side boundary of the subject site. It also indicates electricity lines extending from a power pole on the grass verge across to the front corner of the existing dwelling on the site.

 

The subject site is located within a residential area characterised by one to two storey, detached, dwelling houses.  The dwellings vary from contemporary to traditional in style. 

 

The site, known as 4 Pearce Street, adjoins the subject site to the west.  It is longer in length and consists of a single storey, dwelling house, of brick and clad construction with a hipped main roof form and front gable roof extension.  It consists of a low lying, stepped, brick front fence, similar to that of the subject site.  The dwelling house of this site is setback further than the existing dwelling on the subject site.

 

The site known as 8 Pearce Street adjoins the subject site to the east.  It is similar in size and shape to the subject site and consists of a two storey, dwelling house, of rendered clad construction.  Its gable roof forms a prominent feature as it has a high pitch and two dormer extensions facing the street.  The front building line matches that of the dwelling house on the subject site.

 

The rear boundary of the subject site adjoins a rear section of the side boundary of a property that has an east-west orientation and street frontage to Crana Avenue.  This property is known as 8 Crana Avenue and consists of two storey, rendered, dwelling house with a tiled roof.

 

Photos of the site and surrounding development are provided in the images below.

 

Streetview of subject site from 5 Pearce Street

Figure 1: Streetview of 4 Pearce Street, subject site, and 8 Pearce Street.

 

4 Pearce Street view to rear of subject site

Figure 2: View east from rear balcony at 4 Pearce Street.  Overlooking rear of subject site and 8 Pearce Street.

4 Pearson Street east elevation

Figure 3: View from rear yard of subject site facing east elevation of dwelling house at 4 Pearce Street.

 

 

4 Pearson Street from rear balcony of subject site

Figure 4: View from rear, lower balcony at subject site facing rear yard at 8 Crana Ave.

 

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:

 

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

·           No. 8 Pearce Street, South Coogee

·           No. 4 Pearce Street, South Coogee

·           No. 8 Crana Avenue, South Coogee

·           55 Denning Street, South Coogee

 

Table 1 | Objectors Issues (First Notification Period)

Issue

Comment

 

Objector: 8 Pearce Street, South Coogee

 

 

Height, Bulk and Scale

·        The proposal has a better design than the original DA, however the rear section of the home, in regards to height, bulk and scale, is believed to have adverse amenity impacts generated by the new scheme.

 

Earthworks

·        The proposal fails to comply with the DCP objectives relating to earthworks and also in non-compliant with the controls relating to excavation, associated earthworks the location of the retaining walls.

·        The objective of any proposed earthworks is to minimise large structures that are elevated close to the boundary.  The proposed rear podium structure is massive and will be a monolithic structure and clearly non-compliant with Council’s controls.

 

Side Setbacks

·        The creation of a large raised structure for entertaining purposes so close to the eastern boundary (1.1m setback) with a height of over 4m will create a very high visually dominating and overbearing structure, especially as the rear yard of No. 8 Pearce Street is lower than the Site.

·        Part of the swimming pool and retaining wall are situated on the eastern boundary with a nil setback for 3m in length and 4m in height.

 

Privacy and Overlooking

·        The proposed rear section of the dwelling will adversely impact on No. 8 Pearce Street as the rear terrace will directly overlook the rear yard, deck and living spaces.

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

·        The proposed size, height and bulk of the proposed rear terrace, pool and associated retaining walls is considered to be excessive and not in keeping with the existing and desired character of the FSPA.

 

The impacts are noted and discussed in the sections below ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’, ‘Earthworks’, ‘Building Design’, ‘Rear Fencing’, ‘Private Open Space’, ‘Inconsistency with Zone Objectives & Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’ and ‘Rear Setback’.

 

The earthworks have been discussed in the section below ‘Earthworks’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The setbacks are discussed in the section below ‘Side Setbacks’.

 

The visual impact is discussed in the section below ‘Rear Setback’, ‘Earthworks’, and ‘Building Design’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The non-compliance with the DCP objectives, intentions and controls regarding overlooking is of concern to the objector.  The impact is discussed in the section below ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’.

 

The impact on the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA) is discussed further in the sections below ‘Inconsistency with Zone Objectives’ & ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area’.

 

Objector: 8 Crana Ave, South Coogee

 

 

Height and Scale of the Terrace, Pool and associated Retaining Wall

·        The rear terrace will be elevated well above natural ground level and along the north eastern side reaching 4.5m above the natural ground level.  This is a high as a single storey house.  The structure will reach an RL of 31.6, which will be higher than the sill height of the first floor bedroom and bathroom windows of No. 8 Crana Avenue, which reaches an RL of 31.1.

 

 

 

 

Rear Setback

·        The rear setback of the dwelling should be 6.22m in accordance with the RDCP provisions.  In the case of this proposal, the basement is shown to protrude more than 1.2m above the ground level and therefore is considered to be a storey and should therefore be setback accordingly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Excavation

·        The SEE acknowledges a non-compliance with the control of requiring a setback of 3m to the rear boundary for excavation works, however does not give a justification as to why the compliance cannot be achieved.

 

 

 

 

 

Floor Space

·        The storage area in the basement should be included as FSR as it of a generous size, adjoining a bathroom and have a window.  This could be potentially used as a functional, habitable area.

 

 

Tree Preservation

·        An arborists report shall be prepared in regards to the tree that is located 2m from the subject sites boundary situated at No. 8 Crana Avenue.

 

Landscaping

·        The proposal requires a minimum of 25% dedicated as soft landscaping (deep soil) and based on the plans, less than 10% of deep soil is proposed.

 

Privacy/Overlooking

·        The proposed design will be an improvement to the current situation; however the ground floor rear entertaining area is excessive generating severe privacy concerns and impacts.  With the large bi-fold doors being open and the large raised terrace area being utilised this will be an extensive space that will directly overlook the rear yard of No. 8 Crana Avenue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 79C Considerations

·        The proposal will establish an undesirable precedent in the streetscape and immediate locality especially in relation to the large raised rear podium structure incorporating the terrace, pool and retaining walls.

 

 

The applicant has amended the plans, including a reduction to the height of the rear planter.  The rear section (inclusive of screen fencing) will achieve an RL of 32.25 to the top of the fencing.  The finished terrace floor level will have an RL of 30.6 which is comparative to the sill height indicated on the submitted survey of the first floor level bedroom window at 8 Crana Ave.  The sill height of this window is 30.58.  This indicates the extent of the development and that the height, bulk/scale of the raised rear section will be excessive and result in an unacceptable visual impact.

 

The basement/lower level protrudes more than 1.2m above ground level, and therefore, is considered to constitute a storey.  As such, it is subject to the rear and side setback requirements.  (See figure below as an example). 

 

The proposed rear setback of the basement/lower level is discussed in the section below ‘Rear Setback’ and DCP table in the accompanying compliance report.  

Figure 5 | Example of protruding basement level from RDCP 2013.

 

The minimum excavation requirements listed in RDCP 2013 are addressed in the DCP compliance table of the accompanying compliance report and section below ‘Earthworks’.

 

A formal breakdown of the floor space of the development has been provided by the applicant.  The areas used in calculations are concurred with. Reference should be made to the section ‘Part 4 – Principal development standards of the accompanying compliance report.

 

 

Council’s Landscape officer has reviewed the proposed development and neighbouring tree.  No concerns are raised to the impact of the tree as discussed in the section ‘Landscape Comments’.

 

It is calculated that 22.8% of the site will constitute deep soil area.  Refer to the section below ‘Deep Soil Area’.

 

 

 

 

The proposal has been amended to provide timber screening along the rear private open space to minimise visual privacy impacts to No. 8 Crana Avenue.  However, insufficient details have been provided to justify the acoustic implications of the raised terrace, i.e. in an attempt to minimise impacts.  Based on the non-compliant rear setback, it is assumed that the inadequate building separation will not lend itself to minimising the impact.  One of the objectives for setbacks is to ensure adequate building separation is provided between neighbouring properties for visual and acoustic privacy.  The section below ‘Rear Setbacks’ and ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’ address the impacts of the terrace area.

 

The proposal will result in a raised rear yard which is not characteristic of the surrounding allotments.  The surrounding properties generally retain the natural slope of the land and general topography, as their related rear yards are situated at / close to natural ground level.  Approval of the proposed situation will set a precedent.  This matter is further discussed in the section below ‘Building Design’.

 

Objector: 4 Pearce Street, South Coogee

 

View Loss

·        The proposal will incur view impacts to No. 4 Pearce Street.  Due to the proposed development being extended closer to the rear boundary, the living and kitchen areas of western neighbour will lose the current views.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overshadowing

·        The building will provide overshadowing due to the larger bulk and scale that the proposed development will have.

 

Height, bulk and scale

·        The height of the proposed rear terrace, which is located 900mm from No. 4 Pearce Street’s boundary is extremely high and extends well beyond the current terrace and existing yard.

The view impacts have been addressed in the section below ‘Views’.  The proposal will not result in any unreasonable impacts.

 

The image below indicates sightlines from the side window further south.

Figure 6 | Sightlines from 4 Pearce Street and affected windows in red.

The overshadowing impact has been addressed in the accompanying compliance report.  No undue impacts will result.

 

 

 

This matter has been addressed above.

Objector: 55 Denning Street, South Coogee

Compliance

The RDCP has setback and height provisions for low density developments and the following does not comply.

·        Rear Setback: The current plans depict that the upper level rear setback does not comply with the 6.23m that the RDCP requires.

·        Side Setbacks: Based on the site’s frontage of 12.8m, the side setbacks will need to be increased to comply with the 1.2m provisions from the DCP.

 

Privacy

·        Parts of the dwelling do not comply with the maximum allowable height and along with the non-compliant setbacks; the proposal is not desirable given the proximity to 55 Denning Street and their right to privacy.

 

The non-compliances with the setback controls are discussed in the sections below ‘Side Setbacks’ and ‘Rear Setback’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There will be no privacy impacts on the dwelling at 55 Denning Street.  This property is setback an adequate distance from the site and at a higher level.

 

Key Issues

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

East Side and Rear Elevations

Concerns are raised to the treatment of the rear elevation, rear yard and east side elevations in terms of increasing visual and acoustic privacy impacts to neighbouring properties.  The subject site and nearby sites (i.e. 4 and 8 Pearce Street and 8 Crana Ave) are all constrained sites, located within close proximity to each other.  Therefore, any change must be sensitively designed as not to exacerbate the existing privacy impact. 

 

The amount of glazing on the rear elevation at ground level will be increased in comparison to the existing and rear balcony will be extended over the rear yard.  At present, openings are limited to 4 windows plus a doorway.  The existing situation will be modified to include a wall of glazing across the rear elevation, extending onto the east elevation. 

 

Of particular concern is that portion of glazing that will extend along the east elevation.  It will result in a more imposing impact given it will be closer to the neighbouring property – 8 Pearce Street; will be at a raised location; extend further beyond the rear elevation of 8 Pearce Street and thus enable direct overlooking from the proposed open plan, main living area .  (NB:  The existing dwelling has limited openings on its rear elevation that are setback further from 8 Pearce Street).  It is acknowledged that the east side, living room opening, will consist of louvres in part.  It is not clear if the louvres will be fixed to limit downward views nevertheless, the unprotected window section near the northeast corner will still facilitate overlooking from a main living area.  The combination of the proposed glazing and proposed terrace extension (discussed further below) are not conducive to maintaining or minimising the existing impact but exacerbating it.

 

To minimise the impact of the rear glazing at the master bedroom, along the east and northeast corner (given the closer side setback and location beyond the rear of 8 Pearce Street in comparison to the existing situation), screening measures need to be adequate.  The louvers proposed on the east side must extend over the unprotected window section (near the corner) which is considered the more critical section in terms of facilitating overlooking.  It is not clear if the proposed louvers will be fixed to limit downward views, an important factor in controlling the overlooking impact.  Regardless, the glazing will serve a master bedroom and replace a narrow balcony at upper level, there is potential to minimise the privacy implications particularly given the closer side setback and greater extent of glazing on the side elevation than the existing situation (inclusive of the existing balcony).

 

The existing rear balcony is limited in size and usability.  The proposal will provide a large terrace that will extend further to the north, beyond the existing rear balconies of the existing dwelling on the subject site.  This treatment together with its raised height will result in a more imposing impact to 8 Pearce StreetCouncil’s DCP provides the following control in which the development does not achieve:

 

For sloping sites, any ground floor decks or terraces must step down in accordance with the landform, and avoid expansive areas of elevated outdoor recreation space.

Based on the submitted elevation plans the surrounds will achieve a maximum height of 4.6m (inclusive of 1.5m high screening along the eastern side of the terrace which is proposed to achieve a max RL of 32.1 with an existing RL of 27.5 underneath) and minimum height of 3.4m (at the rear corner at the location of the planter as indicated on the rear elevation plan) along the eastern side; a height of approximately 2.75m (inclusive of the 1.65m timber screen which will achieve an height of RL 32.25 with an existing RL of 29.5 underneath) - 3.75m (rear north west planter with a proposed RL of 32.25 and existing RL below of 28.5) along the western side and 3.5m (from the existing RL 28.5 to proposed RL 32.1 at the top of the pool screen) - 4.5m (from the existing RL 27.5 to proposed RL 32.1 at the top of the pool screen) along the northern side of the swimming pool.  The planter adjacent to the rear boundary (next to the swimming pool) will achieve a height of 2.2m (inclusive of the planter screen at the northwest corner) – 3.4m (at the rear corner at the location of the planter as indicated on the rear elevation plan).

 

The terrace will provide more viewing points from the side and into the rear of the neighbouring property, including more direct views of openings on the rear elevation.  The terrace will be of a size and shape that will encourage usability and increased capacity.  This would increase the potential privacy impacts.  The submitted east elevation indicates that the balustrade to the east will be 1.2m in height.  This height together with the pebbled section to the east will not provide any effective screening / limit views into the neighbouring property 8 Pearce Ave.  Whilst it is acknowledged that the rear of the elevated terrace with minimal privacy screening on the eastern side and building is to maximize ocean views, it will have an adverse cumulative impact with respect to the privacy impacts on the neighboring properties.

 

 

Figure 7 | Rear section of east side elevation indicating 1.2m high glass balustrade.

 

No evidence has been submitted to support the acoustic impact of the raised locations of the rear terrace and pool.  The raised location, lack of solid screen surrounds and minimal separation distance from the rear yard and dwelling at 8 Crana Ave and 8 Pearce Street would not be conducive to minimising the impact on the neighbouring properties.  It can be reasonably concluded from the following objective that if setbacks are non-compliant, (in which they are in this case as discussed further below), and the rear yard will encourage more active recreational uses (particularly given the raised swimming pool and large terrace size) then the acoustic implications will not be adequately controlled. 

 

West Elevation

A variance of 0.26m to the side setback requirement of 1.2m is proposed along the west side at both the lower and upper ground levels.  Inadequate information has been submitted to adequately justify the acoustic implications however, based on the above stated objective, compliance is important in assisting to control acoustic privacy impacts.  If the variance is approved and the neighbouring property is redeveloped in the future, this may impose an additional setback of any neighbouring development or result in a similar setback to that proposed as a precedent would be set.  The latter will provide an inadequate separation that would not be conducive to minimising privacy implications and consistency with the desired future character stipulated by the DCP control.

 

Views

 

The implications on significant views (i.e. water, headland and Wedding Cake Island views) will be satisfactory.  In particular, water views from the two (2) side windows, further north on the east elevation of the dwelling at 4 Pearce Street, will be protected, as well as water views from the rear balcony.  The elevated and setback location of the windows and balcony of 4 Pearce Street will ensure that sightlines will be above the proposed side screens as indicated in the images below.  In addition, a water and headland view to the north exist from the same balcony.  They will not be affected by the proposal.

Figure 8:  Views from windows on east side elevation of 4 Pearce Street.

 

Figure 9:  Headland and water view from the rear balcony of 4 Pearce Street

 

The proposed impact on views from dwellings on the southern side of Pearce Street would be reasonable in this case, particularly given that the height of the proposed dwelling will be lower than the existing dwelling.  It is proposed that the ridge height will be reduced from RL38.04 (as indicated on the amended elevation plans) to RL 37.1 which represents a decrease of 0.94m.  It will entail the removal of the apex of the existing roof.  From some viewing points within dwellings along the southern side of Pearce Street, headland views and views of Wedding Cake Island will be increased.

 

External Wall Height

 

The external wall height variances will generally be as indicated in the image below.

 

The maximum variance will be 1.4m based on an existing RL of estimate of 27.7 below the rear northeast corner which is proposed to have a parapet RL of 37.1.  No concerns are raised to the encroachments to the external wall height given:

 

§  It will result from the fall of the land.

§  That section that will cause an encroachment will not consist of any substantive glazing or other features that will facilitate any privacy implications.

§  It will not result in any other impacts of significance.  As discussed in the table above, the overshadowing impact will be satisfactory.  The view impact will be satisfactory given that the interface to the south and west will achieve compliance with the external wall height control.  Strict compliance to the east and northern side will be of little benefit to the views.

Side Setbacks

 

Eastern Side:

A variance of 36mm is proposed at the ground level and 636mm at the upper level to the side setback requirements of 1.2 and 1.8m respectively.  The variance at ground level will extend along a section of the elevation rather than the whole elevation.  Strict compliance with the side setback controls will be of no significant consequence to visual privacy impacts.  As evident from the above discussion, a general issue with the development is worsening the privacy implications by providing large openings together with a private open space (particularly the rear elevated terrace) closer to the neighbouring property given the raised location of the rear and lower levels of the neighbouring properties 8 Pearce Street and 8 Crana Avenue.

 

Along the western side a variance of 0.26m is proposed.  Strict compliance will provide a better separation to the neighbouring built form and reflect the desired future character, particularly as expected to be established by the DCP control, as well as increase deep soil landscaped area on the site.  It will provide a more consistent setback with respect to the existing side setbacks of 4 Pearce and 8 Pearce Street.

 

Strict compliance with the western side boundary setback will be of minimal consequence to the visual bulk and scale.  Compliance with the minimum 1.8m setback requirement along the eastern side, at the upper level, will provide horizontal and vertical articulation to minimise the visual bulk and scale.

 

With regard to both the eastern and western side setbacks, inadequate information has been submitted to adequately justify the acoustic implications.  The acoustic impact is of particular concern in this case given:

 

§  Based on the DCP objective for setbacks stated above, compliance with the side setback control is important to addressing the acoustic privacy impact for this type of residential development.

§  Larger openings and large private open space closer to the neighbouring property.

§  The raised location of the rear and lower levels of the neighbouring properties 8 Pearce and 8 Crana Avenue.

§  The design of features of the rear yard would encourage more active uses (as discussed above).

§  Lack of measures that would assist in minimising the impacts.

 

Front Setback

 

The DCP requires a front setback of an average of the adjoining dwellings (5.35/6m–9.6m) being 6.98m.  The proposal will have a minimum setback of 5.141m at the lower and ground levels and 6.344m at the first floor level.  No concerns are raised to the upper level setback however, the minimum setbacks below are inadequate and not supported as they will not result in a consistent front building line setback along the street.  A further setback of the proposed lower ground level storage/laundry and ground level media room is necessary to align with the front elevation setback of the dwelling at 8 Pearce Street.  This will provide a consistent stepping along the street taking into consideration (in totality) the building line continuity from 8 Pearce Street to 2 Pearce Street.

 

Rear Setback

 

The minimum rear setback requirement is 6.24m.  The upper level will have a rear setback of 5.962m, whilst the lower ground level (being the workshop/bin store room) will have a setback of 2.85m.  (NB: Since the lower level portion forms a storey and is not an exempt feature listed in the DCP, the setback requirement is applicable in this case). 

 

The rear setback of the lower level is of concern.  This will facilitate the provision of the raised terrace on its roof and thus, is an inconsistency to the following objective for the setback control:  To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy.  The privacy implications of the terrace have been discussed in the section above ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’. 

 

Based on the DCP objective, compliance with the rear setback control is important for adequate separation to addressing the acoustic and visual privacy impacts.  As such, given the inadequate setback (minimum 2.85m), it is assumed that the acoustic implications will not be satisfactory and the rear setback will facilitate a raised rear yard that will increase the visual privacy impacts to 8 Pearce Street.

 

Deep Soil Area

 

The original scheme indicated deep soil calculations to include proposed walls and other areas that did not constitute deep soil area as per the DCP definition (such as front fencing and planter box walls).  The applicant has since made amendments to the submitted plans to include permeable paving within the front building line setback and deduct front fence walls from calculations however, some anomalies still exist. 

 

It is stated on the architectural plans, Drawing No. A01.00, that a total area of 79.8sqm will be provided for deep soil planting.  The calculation provided still includes a retaining wall along the western side; walls around the proposed planter at the northeast corner; the planter box area; a wall extension at the northeast corner and eaves around the front ground level protrusion.  The originally proposed retaining walls, adjacent to the rear boundary and proposed side boundary wall (western side) at the front of the site, have been deleted from the architectural plans and that area has been included in calculations.  However, the walls are indicated on the amended landscape plans.  The rear walls are necessary to retain fill within the rear yard and therefore, any such area covered by the walls needs to be excluded from calculations.  If the anomalies are excluded, the resultant deep soil area will be well below the minimum requirement of 25% (79.8sqm).  The deep soil area provided would be 72.77sqm.

 

Since the requirement is a minimum, the deep soil provision should be met, particularly to provide on-site filtration and minimise runoff impacts to neighbouring properties to the north and east.

 

Earthworks

 

As indicated in the table in the DA compliance report, the maximum depth of excavation will be 2.5m and maximum depth of backfilling will be 2.65m.  Excavation is proposed for the majority of the basement/lower ground level, whereas backfilling is proposed at the rear of the site. 

 

Concerns are raised to the surface area affected at the rear, together with backfilling that will facilitate the proposed raised rear section.  This outcome and resultant massing will not reflect the slope of the site from south to north and west to east.  No sympathetic stepping or terracing is adopted in either direction.  This will not only increase the visual impact to neighbouring properties but also fail to reflect the general topography, consistent relationship between the neighbouring properties, as well as the rear yard treatment that is typified in the locality, i.e. being at grade/close to the existing ground levels.  The proposal will not adequately address the following objectives for earthworks:

 

§  To maintain or minimise change to the natural ground level.

§  To ensure excavation and backfilling of a site do not result in unreasonable visual and privacy impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

The wall and timber screen surrounds will be contrary to the control for earthworks to ‘step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures, particularly where visible from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domainBased on the submitted elevation plans the surrounds will achieve a maximum height of 4.6m (inclusive of 1.5m high screening along the eastern side of the terrace which is proposed to achieve a max RL of 32.1 with an existing RL of 27.5 underneath) and minimum height of 3.4m (at the rear corner at the location of the planter as indicated on the rear elevation plan) along the eastern side; a height of approximately 2.75m (inclusive of the 1.65m timber screen which will achieve an height of RL 32.25 with an existing RL of 29.5 underneath) - 3.75m (rear north west planter with a proposed RL of 32.25 and existing RL below of 28.5) along the western side and 3.5m (from the existing RL 28.5 to proposed RL 32.1 at the top of the pool screen) - 4.5m (from the existing RL 27.5 to proposed RL 32.1 at the top of the pool screen) along the northern side of the swimming pool.  The planter adjacent to the rear boundary (next to the swimming pool) will achieve a height of 2.2m (inclusive of the planter screen at the northwest corner) – 3.4m (at the rear corner at the location of the planter as indicated on the rear elevation plan).  The heights are in excess of the standard heights for fencing.

 

Building Design - General

 

The proposed raising of the whole rear yard will not represent a desirable attribute (given the existing pattern of built forms) or reflect the desired future character.  It will not meet the criteria for private open space (POS) which is required to be at ground level and not on podiums or roofs.  Approval of the proposal will set a precedent in terms of the treatment of rear yards, i.e. being raised above the existing level and altered with respect to the relationship with the levels on neighbouring properties. 

 

The criteria for providing POS at ground level and minimising earthworks is also reflected by the following design control of Section 4.1 of the DCP.

 

On sloping sites, the building mass must be modelled or stepped in response to the land gradient and avoid concentrating the structural bulk on the uphill or downhill side of the allotment. Balconies, terraces and decks must be of a size and configuration that are appropriate to the proportions of the building without excessively increasing its visual bulk.

 

The raised rear yard/terrace will not be consistent with the design control as it fails to incorporate a stepped response and provides uncharacteristic massing within the rear yard that will represent excess visual bulk to neighbouring properties. 

 

Rear Fencing

 

The maximum requirement for rear fencing is 1.8m.  The rear treatment will add a barrier measuring from 3.4m in height based on the rear elevation plan.  This will present as a prominent, undesirable feature to neighbouring properties.

 

Front Fencing

 

No concerns are raised to the height and design of the front fence. The only concern is the setback location of the front fence.  The proposed front fence will not align with the front fencing on neighbouring properties or the predominant fence setback line along the street.

 

Private Open Space (POS)

 

Whilst the proposed POS will meet the minimum dimensions stipulated by RDCP 2013, it will not achieve the following location requirements:

§  Situated at ground level; and does not include any open space on podiums or roofs.

 

The terrace will be located above the workshop / bin room which forms a level/storey as it will project more than 1.2m above the existing ground level.  Based on the associated privacy and visual impacts, the POS is unsatisfactory.

 

Inconsistency with Zone Objectives & Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The amenity impacts of the proposal have been discussed above.  The development will have an adverse impact on the surrounding amenity in terms of privacy and visual bulk.  As such, the proposal falls short of meeting the fourth objective of the zone being:

 

§  To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed raising of the whole rear yard will not represent a desirable attribute given the existing pattern of built forms.  The treatment will add to the bulk and scale and provide an inconsistent massing.  The massing will extend over a large area of the lot and is not characteristic of the surrounding built forms or desired future character.  In this regard, the proposal will be contrary to the third objective which states:

 

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.

 

The application of black and dark grey, external, coloured sections will not be representative of a desirable streetscape feature or one that is reflective of the scenic quality of the foreshore area.  Accordingly, this aspect will also be at odds with the above objective and the DCP objective for the external schedule which refers to ‘enhancing the streetscape’, as well as the specific objectives and control listed below for development in Foreshore Scenic Protection Areas (listed in Part B10 of the DCP):

 

 

Objective:  To encourage high quality designs for dwellings that are sensitive and sympathetic to the natural landform, colours and landscape character of the foreshore areas.

 

Control:  The exterior colour scheme must complement the natural elements in the coastal areas. The colour palette must predominantly consist of light toned neutral hues.

 

The use of light toned and earthy colours will ensure consistency with the following objectives for the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area:

 

To recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline.

To ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Based on the assessment of the application, it is recommended that the application be refused in its current form primarily as a result of the raised rear yard section; the development will not be in the public interest as it will set an undesirable precedent and is contrary to the objectives of the zone.  The rear section of the proposal will result in uncharacteristic massing and inadequate setbacks to result in unacceptable privacy implications and visual bulk.  The proposed raising of the entire rear yard will not represent a desirable attribute given the existing pattern of built forms or reflect the desired future character.  It will not meet the criteria for private open space (POS) which requires POS to be at ground level and not be on podiums or roofs.  Approval of the proposal will set a precedent in terms of the treatment of rear yards, i.e. being raised above the existing level and altered with respect to the relationship with the levels on neighbouring properties.

In addition to the above, the proposal is unsatisfactory given the following:

 

§  The choice of the external colour schedule and application of black and dark grey sections will not be representative of a desirable streetscape feature or one that is reflective of the scenic quality of the foreshore area.

§  The development will not meet the deep soil area requirement.  It is considered that since the requirement is a minimum it should be met.

§  Inadequate setbacks are proposed, particularly with respect to the rear setback which facilitates the raised rear yard. 

§  The minimum front setback proposed at ground level will not be consistent with that of the neighbouring properties. 

§  The setbacks will not reflect the desired future character and facilitate adequate deep soil landscaped area. 

§  Earthworks will facilitate the raised rear section.  They will not maintain or minimise change to the natural ground level.  The rear works will result in an unreasonable visual and privacy impacts on neighbouring properties.

§  The proposed front fence will not align with the front property boundary, the front fencing on neighbouring properties or the predominant fence setback line along the street.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/213/2015 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house, earthworks, landscaping and erection of a new dwelling house at No. 6 Pearce Street, South Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.       Non-compliance with the R2 “Low Density Residential” objectives of the zone of RLEP 2012:

 

§  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.

 

2.       Non-compliance with Clause 6.7 – Foreshore scenic protection areaThe application of black and dark grey, external, coloured sections will not be reflective of the scenic quality of the foreshore area.  It will result in an inconsistency with the following  objectives for the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area:

 

To recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline.

 

To ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast

 

3.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 2.4 - Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces of RDCP 2013.  Inadequate deep soil landscaped area to meet the minimum requirement of 25% of the site area.

 

4.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 2.5 – Private Open Space of RDCP 2013The proposed rear terrace, swimming pool and planter box surrounds does not meet the following criteria: Situated at ground level; and does not include any open space on podiums or roofs.

 

5.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 3.3.1 – Front Setback of RDCP 2013.  The front setback of the storage room at lower level and media room at ground level will not be consistent with that of the neighbouring properties.

 

6.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 3.3.2 – Side Setbacks of RDCP 2013.  Inadequate building separation to reflect the desired future character, enable adequate deep soil landscaped area and ‘to ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for acoustic privacy’.  .

 

7.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 3.3.3 – Rear Setbacks of RDCP 2013.  The proposal will not be consistent with an objective for setbacks being ‘to ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy’. 

 

8.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 4.1 – Building Design of RDCP 2013The building mass is not modelled or stepped in response to the land gradient and the rear yard treatment will excessively increasing its visual bulk.

 

9.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 4.5 – Colours, Materials and Finishes of RDCP 2013The application of black and dark grey on external elevations will not enhance the streetscape character.

 

10.     Non-compliance with Section C1- 4.6 – Earthworks of RDCP 2013 and the following objectives:

 

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

·       To ensure excavation and backfilling of a site do not result in unreasonable visual and privacy impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

11.     Non-compliance with Section C1- 5.3 – Visual Privacy of RDCP 2013.  The proposed development will result in an unacceptable visual privacy impacts on 8 Crana Ave and 8 Pearce Ave, including an associated unacceptable cumulative impact.

 

12.     Non-compliance with Section C1- 5.4 – Acoustic Privacy of RDCP 2013.  Insufficient information has been submitted to adequately justify the acoustic impacts.  Given the following objective for setbacks, it is concluded that acoustic impacts will not be satisfactory as non-compliant setbacks are proposed:

 

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

 

13.     Non-compliance with Section C1- 7.2 – Front Fence of RDCP 2013.

The proposed front fence will not align with the front property boundary and as per the front fencing on neighbouring properties or the predominant fence setback line along the street.

 

14.     Non-compliance with Section C1- 7.3 – Side and Rear Fencing of RDCP 2013The overall height of the rear wall/screening will present as a prominent, undesirable feature to neighbouring properties.

 

15.     Non-compliance with Section B10- Foreshore Scenic Protection Area of RDCP 2013The rear wall/screening will present as a prominent, undesirable feature to neighbouring properties.

 

16.     The proposal is not in the public interestThe proposal is not in the public interest.  The proposal is contrary to objectives of the zone; will result in adverse environmental impacts and set a precedent with regard to the treatment of the rear yard (i.e. siting, design, location and relationship with the existing topography and neighbouring properties).

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 6 Pearce Street, South Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D50/15

 

 

Subject:                  51 Earl Street, Randwick (DA/218/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/218/2015

Author:                   City Plan Services, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations, ground and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling house including new rear detached shed (Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Ergo Architecture & Interiors

Owner:                        Mr M L Adams & Ms K A Hole

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview48430.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The applicant is a relative of a Council employee and therefore the application has been

assessed by an external consultant and is referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions a single storey semi-detached dwelling which in summary comprise:

 

·      Ground floor:

Modification of the front section of the dwelling to provide a new bathroom, laundry and stair

Replace the rear section of the dwelling with an addition built to the northern boundary containing an open plan kitchen, dining and living area.

·      New First floor:

Two bedrooms and a bathroom

Rear balcony and storage within the existing rood volume

·      At the rear of the dwelling the existing undercover hardstand carspace is to be retained and a new deck and shed provided.

 

Site

 

No.51 Earl Street (Lot 35 DP 1853) is occupied by a brick semi-detached cottage.

The site has a street frontage of 6m, a depth of 50.27m and an overall area of 91.2m2. The rear boundary is common with Castle Street.

 

 


Image 1: Subject Site     (in centre)

 

The surrounding area consists predominantly of attached and detached single and two storey dwellings. The streetscape slopes south to north with No. 49 Earl Street located to the north and No. 51A Earl Street (the other half of the semi-detached property) located to the south. 

 

 

 

 

 


Image 2: Nos. 51 and 51A Earl Street

 

Image 3: Rear view of the subject Site

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Two submissions were received from No.49 Earl Street and No. 51A Earl Street. Consideration of the issues raised is provided in the following table:

 

Issues

Comments

1.   Does the first floor on the northern side have a setback of minimum 15000mm from the side boundary as per Heritage conservation area guidelines

The proposal has a side boundary setbacks of 997mm at the first level, which complies with required 900mm under the DCP.

2.   We would like a fixed privacy screen on the northern side of the first floor rear balcony off the rear room for privacy

Addressed by the amended plans.

3.   We would like the full width wall on the ground floor northern side to match 49 Earl Street’s southern boundary wall in length exactly

Addressed by the amended plans.

4.   We have privacy concerns for the first floor windows on the northern side, as we understand that these are required to have a sill height of 1600mm for privacy and noise

Addressed by the amended plans - obscure glazing provided to parts of the relevant windows.

5.   To protect privacy to No 51A Earl Street we request a screen to be added along the south side of the upper level balcony. The balcony should be of a design that allows for filtering of light to reduce shadow impacts

A condition is recommended to require the additional screen to be provided as requested.  To be effective the screen will need to be a certain design. The implications for overshadowing from such a screen are considered negligible in the context of wider scope of works. 

 

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.)

 

Heritage

 

No.51 Earl Street is located within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation area, under RLEP 2012.  Therefore the application has been accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Impact (SHI), prepared by Ruth Daniell. The SHI argues that the proposal retains the appearance of the existing house and its streetscape form and detailing with the first floor addition set well back from the Earl Street frontage, allowing the small gable and main roof gable to be visually legible. The SHI concludes that the proposal is consistent with approved first floor additions to the other single storey semi-detached houses in the streetscape.

 

The heritage value of the site is identified by Council's Heritage Planner as follows:

 

"The site is within the North Randwick heritage conservation area and is occupied by an asymmetrical semi-detached cottage, part of a pair comprising nos.51 and 51A Earl Street.  The pair retain much of their original character including face brick walls, terracotta tiled roofs, timber casement windows, heavy brick verandah piers and timber detailing to the double gables.  The pair contributes to the heritage value of the North Randwick heritage conservation area through their scale, form, materials and detailing.  To the north of the site is a group of semi-detached cottages comprising nos.39 – 49 Earl Street.  Nos.39, 43, 45 and 49 have been subject to upper level additions.  While these additions are set to the rear of the primary Earl Street frontage, they are prominent in the secondary Castle Street frontage. Immediately to the south of the site is a detached Victorian cottage, somewhat altered.  Further to the south of the side at nos.55 – 61 Earl Street is a group of detached and semi-detached weatherboard cottages listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 2012." 

 

Council's Heritage Planner identified a range of concerns with the application as lodged, principally with regard to the scale and volume of the proposed first floor addition.

 

Those matters were the subject of a meeting with the applicant which resulted in the submission of amended plans on 5th June 2015. The amended plans were further assessed by Council's Heritage Planner, and are considered to be generally satisfactory, although the following concerns remain:

 

·      The proposed gabled roof form of the upper level addition will compromise the symmetry and integrity of the front elevation and dominate the other house in the pair; and

·      The gabled roof from to the rear elevation could also be replaced with a hipped roof, if preferred. 

 

To resolve those matters this report recommends the gabled roof form to the front elevation of the upper level addition to be replaced by a hipped roof form, in order to minimise the bulk, apparent height and streetscape visibility of the upper level addition. The gabled roof form to the rear elevation may be replaced with a hipped roof form, if preferred.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter

 

Conclusion

 

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

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.       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. 218/2015 for alterations and ground and first floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling, at No. 51 Earl Street, subject to the non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard condition

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)     The gabled roof form to the front elevation of the upper level addition shall be replaced by a hipped roof form, in order to minimise the bulk, apparent height and streetscape visibility of the upper level addition. The gabled roof form to the rear elevation may be replaced with a hipped roof form, if preferred.

 

b)     A privacy screen is to be provided across the southern edge of the upper level rear balcony. The design shall replicate that of the screen already noted to the northern edge of that balcony. 

 

Amended drawings 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.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 51 Earl Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D51/15

 

 

Subject:                  1-1A Major Street, Coogee (DA/617/2012/A)

Folder No:                   DA/617/2012/A

Author:                   Jason  Azzi, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 application seeking retrospective approval for additional excavation works and modifications to internal layout of dwelling at main living and lower ground floor levels.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Lisa and Ralph Mobbs

Owner:                        Lisa and Ralph Mobbs

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application seeks to modify the original consent which was approved on 10 September 2013. The existing approval detailed demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new four (4) level dwelling with garage, swimming pool and associated works

 

This application is referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined at a Planning Committee Meeting.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

 

Proposal

 

The details of the proposed modifications which are the subject of this application are as detailed below;

 

·      Retrospective approval for excavation works to the western portion of the site

·      Extend the size of the family room on main living level

·      Add storage space on main living level

·      Add spiral staircase descending to lower ground level

·      Relocate and expand water tank and plant room on lower ground level

·      Add a cool cellar room on lower ground level

·      Add a rumpus room on lower ground level

·      Add a home automation room on lower ground level

·      Add a storage room on lower ground level

 

The applicant’s justification for the proposed amendments is as follows;

 

“This additional excavation [to the western portion of the main living level and lower ground level] resulted from the discovery of an unknown basement and floating boulders, which were uncovered and removed during the excavation process. As a consequence a larger vacant space has been created

 

It is proposed to utilise the additional excavated areas, primarily for the plant and water tank room. During design detail, the pool consultant advised that the sewer pipe was too small and a large buffer tank is required. The additional equipment for the pool requires a larger space than approved under DA No. 617/2012. This can be accommodated within the excavated space.

 

As approved under DA No. 617/2012, the plant room was located in an ideal location for access to sun, views, ventilation and direct access to landscaped private open space. The additional space left by the removal of the floating boulders provides the opportunity to use the approved location for the plant as a habitable space, with good amenity.”

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Majors Street and is known as 1-1A Major Street, Coogee. The local character is defined by large and small residential flat buildings and large single dwelling houses of varying architectural styles.

 

The site has currently been excavated as evident in Figure 1 below:

 

Figure 1: Site inspection photo of subject site on 11 June 2015.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

S96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the proposal remains substantially the same Development. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed changes will not result in a significant change to the nature of the original consent and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted.

 

Overall, the proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

Modifications

 

The proposal seeks retrospective approval for excavation works to the western portion of the site as well as approval for alterations and additions to the main living area including extension of family room, additional storage space and spiral staircase and on lower ground level including relocation and expansion of water tank and plant room, additional cellar, rumpus, home automation and storage rooms. The statement of environmental effects states the unauthorised excavation works “resulted from the discovery of an unknown basement and floating boulders, which were uncovered and removed during the excavation process. As a consequence a larger vacant space has been created”. Figure 2 below illustrates the excavation works:

 

Figure 2: Unauthorized excavation works

 

The subject site contains a site area of 739.8m2. The proposal will slightly increase the floor space ratio on site from 0.53:1 to 0.55:1. It is considered that this increase will not significantly contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development as the increase in floor space ratio is wholly contained underground beneath the street level and remains under the floor space ratio control for the site. The proposal is not expected to result in any unreasonable loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views. It is noted the applicant has provided an email explaining the floor space ratio at the time of the original application was calculated according to the definition of floor space ratio under the then Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998. At present, the floor space ratio is defined under the RLEP 2012 and therefore the application has been assessed as per the definition stated in the current Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

Further, due to the topography of the site, the proposed alterations and additions to the main living area and lower ground level are below streetscape level and are wholly contained within the previously approved building envelope when viewed from the streetscape. The proposed works do not alter the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the street and maintain the previously approved building height, setbacks and deep soil and permeable landscaping. The proposed works therefore are not considered to cause additional privacy or overshadowing impacts upon neighbouring properties and meet the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 – Coastal Protection

 

The subject site is located within the Metropolitan Coastal Zone upon which the provisions of SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection apply.

The aims of this policy are to protect and manage the natural attributes of the New South Wales coast, ensure the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and protect and preserve rock platforms to ensure that development is of a type, bulk, scale and size that is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area.

 

Part 2 of this policy sets out the matters for consideration of development which in addition to the aims of the policy includes;

 

a)     the suitability of development given its type, location and design and its relationship with the surrounding area,

b)     any detrimental impact that development may have on the amenity of the coastal foreshore,

c)     the scenic qualities of the NSW coast, and means to protect and improve these qualities.

 

Having regard to the overall aims of the policy and the relevant matters for consideration, it is concluded that the proposal has not resulted in an increased built form that will be intrusive and bulky within the foreshore as the proposal is below street level and therefore, it will not detract from both the amenity and scenic qualities of the coastal environment.

 

Clause 6.7 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area:

 

The subject site is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (Clause 6.7) under the Randwick LEP 2012. The consent authority may only grant consent to a building within the foreshore scenic protection area after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

The proposal will not be detrimental to the visual qualities and amenity of the foreshore and will not detract from the prevailing height, bulk and scale of the surrounding residences. The originally approved materials and finishes are not proposed to change while no structures are proposed beyond the Foreshore Building Line. Therefore, the proposal will satisfy the above objectives of the clause and is considered satisfactory in this regard.

 

Section 79C Environmental Assessment

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation).

The site is zoned Residential R2 Low Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council’s consent.

 

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will enhance and compliment the aesthetic character and social amenity of the locality.

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

Nil.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

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

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

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application to modify the consent satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and is 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. DA/612/2012/A for additional excavation works and modifications to internal layout of dwelling at main living and lower ground floor levels, at No. 1-1A Major Street, Coogee in the following manner:

 

A.        Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

         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

DA 05 Rev C

Renato D’Ettore Architects

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 06 Rev B

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 07 Rev C

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 08 Rev D

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 09 Rev C

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 10 Rev D

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 11 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 12 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 13 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 14 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 15 Rev E

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 15A Rev E

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 16 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 16A Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 17 Rev D

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 18 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

DA 19 Rev C

 

14 May 2013

21 May 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Single dwelling

441815S

25 Sept 2012

 

As amended by the Section 96’A’ plans as detailed below, and as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA05 Rev F

Renato D’Ettore Architects

16 June 2015

DA10 Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

DA11 Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

DA16 Rev D

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

DA16A Rev D

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

DA17 Rev E

Renato D’Ettore Architects

7 April 2015

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D52/15

 

 

Subject:                  30 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/915/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/915/2014

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new three storey dwelling house containing living areas and 4 bedrooms with basement car park and storage, front swimming pool and balcony areas, a rear terrace area, associated site works and landscaping.

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Baker Kavanagh Architects

Owner:                        Mrs. E Lockwood

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview37885.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The applicant has been referred to Council for consideration by the request of Councillors Stavrinos, Andrews, D'Souza and Bowen.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a new three storey dwelling house containing living areas and 4 bedrooms with basement car park and storage, a front swimming pool and balcony area, a rear terrace area, associated site works and landscaping.

 

The plans have been amended since lodgement and substantial changes have been made including:

 

·      A deletion of the uppermost 4th storey and reduction of a maxmum height of the building by 2.4m from 11.4m to 9.0m.

·      A reduction in floor area of the car park level and ground floor levels to achieve an overall FSR of approximately 0.58:1 versus the  maximum allowable of 0.6:1.

·      A increase in the front setback from approximately 4m to approxiamtely 7m and associated reduction in the bulk, scale and height of the front section of the building.

·      An increase in side setbacks to a minimum 1.8m to all levels of the dwelling versus the DCP requirement for 1.2 m for the ground and first floors and 1.8m for the 2nd floor and over.

 

Since lodgement of the amended plans and based on discussions with the applicant regarding a desired setback consistent with the existing garage structure on the property to the east at 32 Mermaid Avenue, further amended plans have been received which provide for an additional setback of 1.11m or a minimum of approximately 7.855m to Mermaid Avenue boundary.

 

The following western elevation indicates the building envelope of the most recently amended proposal versus the outline associated with of the original design:

 

Figure 1: Western Elevation

 

It is the amended plans that are the subject of the report that follows:

 

Site

The site is an almost regular shaped allotment with a frontage of 15.295m to Mermaid Avenue, a rear boundary width of 15.24m, eastern and western side boundary depths of 54.18m and 55.495m and a total site area of 835.6m2.

The land has a fall from the rear to the street of approximately 6m constituting a gradient of approximately 12%. Additional the site has an east west cross fall of approximately 6% at the rear increasing in the front section of the site to about 9%.

 

The site is occupied by a single storey brick and tile dwelling to be demolished. To the east the site is bound by a 3 storey dwelling house and to the south and west by single storey dwelling houses.

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by detached dwelling houses of from single storey to 3- 4 storeys in character.

 

Dwellings in the locality enjoy interrupted to expansive ocean views to the east and north east over Lurline Bay and the Pacific Ocean.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification on two occasions. As a result of this notification, in response the original proposal the following submissions were received including a petition containing 25 signatures from residents in Mermaid Avenue and Torrington Road:

 

·      22 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

·      28 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

·      32 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

·      2A Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      4 Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      4A Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      6 Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      8 Torrington Road, Maroubra

·      Petition signed by residents from: 22, 24, 26, 28 31, 32, 36 and 37 Mermaid Avenue; 2A, 4, 4A and 6 Torrington Road, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed dwelling exceeds the 9.5 height limit in an excessive and unjustified manner.

The proposal has been reduced in height to between approximately 5.6m and a maximum 9m and is now compliant with the 9.5m maximum overall building height limit under RLEP.

Impact of the proposed variation to the front setback of up to some 13m.

See Front Setback in Key Issues section of this report.

Overshadowing from section of building forward of the established building line is excessive.

Revised shadow diagrams have been submitted with the amended plans which demonstrate that the shadows cast by the proposed development will allow for parts of north facing windows and private open space areas on adjoining properties to receive at least 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8.00am and 4.00pm during the winter solstice.

Loss of visual and acoustic privacy to properties at the rear fronting Torrington Road created by the uppermost fifth level.

The uppermost level of the proposed dwelling house has been deleted and the height has been reduced from a maximum of 11.4m to 9.0m. This is also addressed under Visual Privacy in the Key Issues section of this report.

Site coverage should include the pool and terrace structures at the front of the site.

Revised plan detail and calculations have been submitted demonstrating compliance with the maximum allowable site coverage of 45%.

Concerns over noise from pool pump and associated filter and cinema room.

The proposed pool and pump area are entirely within the lower ground floor confines of the building and standard conditions are included in the recommendation regarding the required acoustic treatment to protect the amenity of surrounding properties.

Concern over potential damage from excavation.

Standard conditions in relation to dilapidation reports are included in the recommendation to ensure the impact from excavation is reasonably protected.

Loss of ocean views.

See View Sharing assessment in Key Issues section of this report.

Adverse impact on the scenic qualities of the area and the requirements of Council’s Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

See Foreshore Scenic Protection Area assessment in Key Issues section of this report.

Council has a history of approving proposals despite a flagrant violation of controls.

Each application is dealt with on its merits. The proposed development as amended has been significantly reduced and in its current form includes only 1 minor variation to the external wall height control which is addressed in the Key Issues section of this report.

Ground levels are incorrectly shown and should be reviewed.

The amended plans have been checked and correspond to the survey which accompanies the submitted application.

 

In response to the amended plans, the following submissions were received.

·      22 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

·      28 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Excessive height and extent of blade wall to front ground floor balcony.

The proposed blade wall has been setback additionally so as to protrude a maximum of 3.6m. See also Front Setback assessment in Key Issues section of this report.

Loss of Ocean View to the east.

See View sharing assessment in Key Issues section of this report.

Permanent deprivation of direct natural sunlight to the front sunroom.

Shadows cast by the proposed development will continue to allow for proportions of north facing windows and private open space area to receive more than 3 hours of direct sunlight during the winter solstice.

Development will compromise the corridor of ocean breeze and have a detrimental effect on amenity.

This contention has not been substantiated and or is addressed elsewhere in this report.

Adverse visual impact on adjoining properties, the streetscape and the foreshore scenic protection area.

Having regard to the existing and likely future form of development on adjoining properties, the visual impact is considered acceptable.

The proposed development will also be deprived of direct westerly afternoon sunlight by inclusion of the blade wall at the front of the property.

The proposed development will receive the required amount of direct sunlight during the winter solstice as per the requirements of the DCP.

The maximum height of the blade wall should be restricted to 3 – 4m above natural ground level.

The merits of the proposed development are assessed as outlined in this report.

 

Privacy screens on the western elevation should be fixed at 45 degrees.

A condition of consent is included in the recommendation restricting the opening of the respective screens to a maximum of 45% with the exception of the screen to the kitchen window at ground floor level which will be limited to a maximum opening from right to left of 30 degrees. These measures would ensure an acceptable level of mutual privacy.

The blade wall structure is hideous and out of character with the dwellings on surrounding properties and a flagrant violation of the aesthetic and architectural qualities of the streetscape.

The proposed dwelling house as amended will contribute satisfactorily to the streetscape and the foreshore scenic protection area.

Inadequate appearance of the development from the public thoroughfare.

The proposed dwelling house will have an acceptable impact when viewed from the public domain.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

Clause 6.7 states:

6.7   Foreshore scenic protection area

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

(a)  to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline,

(b)  to protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore,

(c)  to protect significant public views to and from the coast,

(d)  to ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

(2)  This clause applies to land identified as “Foreshore scenic protection area” on the

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area Map.

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

(a)  is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas, and

(b)  contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

The original plans of proposal incorporated elements of excess height, bulk and scale which would have been inconsistent with the intentions of this clause. The amended plans significantly reduce these aspects to a development now largely compliant with the applicable RLEP and DCP controls. A minor departure from the external addressed wall height is addressed in the in the following section and demonstrates that the development as amended will have an acceptable impact when viewed from public areas of the coastline and contribute to the scenic quality of the foreshore.

 

With respect to external materials and finishes, given the prominence of the site when viewed from surrounding areas including across Lurline Bay in Liguria Street, the proposed dark grey zinc coated metal sheeting on side elevations will be at odds with the external appearance other dwellings in the streetscape which tend to be of lighter tone finishes. A condition of consent is therefore included in the recommendation requiring the submission and approval of a lighter tone of cladding prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

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.)

 

External Wall Height

The objectives of the DCP in this regard are:

 

·      To ensure development height establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to its character.

 

·      To ensure development height does not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity.

 

·      To ensure the form and massing of development respect the topography of the site.

 

The proposed external wall height exceeds the maximum allowable of 8m by up to 1m to a maximum of 9m for a small section of the building at the front of the site, largely due to the slope of the land.

 

Control iii) in relation to External Wall Height provides for variations in the following circumstances:

An alternative design that variates from the above external wall height controls may be acceptable having regard to the following consideration:

       

·        Site topography

 

·        Site orientation

 

·        Allotment configuration

 

·        Allotment dimensions

 

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

 

As mentioned above, the non–compliance relates to a small section of the building due to the natural fall of the land and the floor level of the ground floor plate projected from the rear of the site which is at a higher level.

 

The departure is considered as justified for the following reasons:

 

·      The non–compliance is for a small section of the building largely due to the site topography and approximately 80% of the overall building footprint is well under the maximum allowable 8m external wall height and the entire dwelling at a maximum of 9m in height is within the maximum allowable overall height of 9.5m.

·      The proposal complies with the solar access requirements of the DCP in relation to adjoining properties by allowing at least 3 hours of direct sunlight access to a proportion of north facing windows and private open space areas during the winter solstice.

·      Removal of the non-compliant section of the building will not greatly alter the appearance of visual bulk on adjoining properties.

·      The acceptability of the view impacts is addressed under the view sharing assessment below

 

Front Setbacks

The DCP provides the following Objectives for all setbacks and controls in relation to front 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.

 

 

 

 

3.3.1 Front Setbacks

 

Controls

 

·      The front setback must be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings. Where there are no adjoining dwellings, the setback must be no less than 6m.

·      Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

·      For corner allotments, the setback from the secondary street frontage must be in accordance with the following minimum requirements:

·      900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m

·      1500mm for all other sites

·      The front setback areas must be free of structures, such as swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings.

 

The subject site is part of a 3 remaining properties with setbacks well in excess of those evident elsewhere in Mermaid Avenue. This is depicted in the following 2012 aerial photo:

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview46905.png

Figure 2: 2012 Aerial photo of immediate locality (Source: Randwick Council Aerial Photographs)

 

From a review of aerial photographs from 1984 onwards, it is evident that the construction of dwelling houses on the south western side of Mermaid Avenue has provided for an emerging character with the following characteristics:

 

·      The removal of the 6m landscaped setback associated with traditional dwellings in the locality.

·      The replacement with landscape structures including swimming pools including the siting of such structures up to the street alignment.

 

The above arrangement is evident in respect of the existing developments from 36 – 46 Mermaid Avenue inclusive. Whilst these sites have smaller site areas, this concept has been emulated by the dwelling house at 36 Mermaid Avenue, the first of the larger sites heading west and similar in area to the subject site.

Notwithstanding, a transition of greater setbacks to the 3 properties from 26 – 30 has been respected to a degree by the siting of the dwelling and garage structure at 32 Mermaid Avenue. The continuance of a transition is desirable in terms of balancing the existing streetscape characteristics with the desired future character of the locality.

 

The application as originally submitted included a siting of the development to within 3.8m of the front alignment with the swimming pool and garage structures rising to a height of almost 5m. Discussions with the applicant have resulted in amended plans providing for a minimum setback to Mermaid Avenue of between 7.855m and 9.17m which is consistent with the alignment of the garage structure at 32 Mermaid Avenue. The height of the pool and garage structure in the amended design has been lowered to a maximum of 3.2m in height. The area in front of the swimming pool area will be landscaped as will the side boundary setbacks of 1.8m to each boundary.

 

The resultant reduction in height, bulk and scale is depicted in Figure 1 above and the following diagram (from the amended plan view) demonstrating an appropriate transition of setbacks from 28 – 32 Mermaid Avenue.

 

Figure 3: Extract from amended site analysis showing transition from 28 – 32 Mermaid Avenue (Source: Baker Kavanagh Architects)

 

The amended proposal therefore satisfies the setback objectives of the DCP in that:

 

·      The development will reasonably maintain the rhythm of setbacks and front gardens that will contribute to the character of the neighbourhood.

 

·      The additional setbacks and reduced overall height of the development, specifically those relating to structures which protrude beyond the main building envelope will ensure a massing of development that will complement and enhance the existing streetscape character.

 

·      Adequate separation is provided between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.

 

·      The proposed development as amended provides the required amount of private open space and deep soil planting.

 

·      Having regard to the view sharing analysis in the Key Issues section of the report the proposed development will enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

Visual Privacy

The objectives of the DCP in this regard are:

 

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

 

The window openings in general are high set and or offset in relation to the window openings on adjoining dwellings. The eastern elevation interface with existing window openings at 32 Mermaid Avenue is acceptable as the windows on the proposed dwelling are high set and or setback 4m from the respective boundary and adjacent to circulation areas only. In respect of the western elevation and the privacy screens to the first floor guest room and adjacent balcony areas, the restriction of opening to a maximum of 45 degrees from right to left should ensure a reasonable level of mutual privacy in relation to 28 Mermaid Avenue.

 

With regard to the ground floor kitchen window and notwithstanding the proposed privacy screens, due to the siting of this opening in relation to existing windows to bedroom (and sunroom) areas at 28 Mermaid Avenue, the 45% degree angle of the privacy screen will facilitate a direct view from the proposed kitchen into these areas. A restriction in the opening to a maximum of 30 degrees will suffice for privacy purposes whilst continuing to allow for reasonable levels of afternoon sunlight access to the kitchen opening.

 

Conditions to facilitate the above are included in the recommendation.

 

View Sharing:

The DCP outlines the following objectives and controls in relation to view sharing.

 

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Concern was initially raised in relation to view loss from 28 Mermaid Avenue and a number of properties in Torrington Road. The amended plans provide surveyed height details immediately behind the subject height at 6 Torrington Road demonstrating the that the ground floor level of the existing single storey dwelling house will accord with maximum roof height of the proposed development (as amended). The following photo taken from 10 Torrington Road also indicates the nature of the views attainable from a rear perspective.

Figure 4: Photo taken from the rear of 10 Torrington Road showing rear of existing dwelling house at 32 Mermaid Avenue (white building). The proposed dwelling house will have a height approximately 1.3m lower than that dwelling (exception lift overrun 0.87m lower)

 

This information coupled with the deletion of the uppermost floor and further reductions in the height of the amended dwelling results in a building envelope that complies with Councils LEP height and FSR controls and involves only a minor departure from the external wall height which has been justified on this occasion.

 

Having regard to the level of compliance evident in the amended plans, any view loss associated with the proposed development from properties in Torrington Road is considered sustainable and in accordance with the objectives of the DCP and the Tenacity Principle.

 

The following photos show existing views obtained from the dwelling house at 28 Mermaid Avenue:

 

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview47431.png

 

 

Figure 5: The context of the view sharing issue in relation to the coastline.

Figure 6: Street view of the existing dwelling at 28 Mermaid Avenue. Most affected sunroom LHS partially obscured by the Pine tree. 3 frame window opening adjacent to central bedroom and RHS single window and faceted corner bay windows adjacent to bedroom/sunroom (not available for inspection).

 

Figure 7: Seated view of sunroom most affected by proposed development.

Figure 8: Standing view of sunroom most affected by proposed development.

Figures 9 and 10: Standing views on approach to sunroom windows.

 

Figure 12: Seated view from next to sunroom windows.

Figure 12: Standing view from central front bedroom.

Figure 13 and 14: Seated views from central front bedroom.

 

 

Figure 15: View from in front of the westernmost front bedroom/window (not available for inspection).

 

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

 

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

“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.”

 

“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.”

 

Interrupted ocean views currently enjoyed from 28 Mermaid Avenue include:

 

·      Standing views from the front sunroom area east north east across the common side boundary with 30 Mermaid Avenue. Views from this vantage point are also largely obscured by a substantial Pine tree in front of the sunroom at No.28.

·      Interrupted ocean views from seated and standing positions to the north east from central front bedroom and westernmost bedroom/sunroom (not available for inspection).

 

Principle 3: 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.”

 

It is evident that the owners are mainly concerned about the loss of views from the front sunroom which are solely affected. The view loss is caused by the construction of a blade wall on the western edge of ground and first floor balcony areas at the front of the dwelling and a lower rise concrete balustrade between the front balcony and swimming pool structure. Despite the view loss from this perspective, which in isolation is perhaps “moderate”, in the context of views attainable from elsewhere in the dwelling the view loss is considered minor.

 

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

 

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

The development as originally submitted included substantial departures from the maximum building height and external wall height controls. The consequent impact on views was clearly unsustainable. The plans have since been amended to eliminate the non-compliance with the maximum building height control and continue to involve a minor departure from the external wall height, which has been assessed as justified in the above section of key issues. Importantly, it is noted that the non-compliant wall height component does not worsen the view loss impact from 28 Mermaid Avenue.

 

It is however noted that, if the lower rise concrete balustrade between the blade wall and the swimming pool were replaced with transparent glass, this would preserve a through view to interrupted ocean views to some extent from the sunroom area of 28 Mermaid Avenue.

 

Given the generously sized balcony at ground floor level (approximately 65m2) and the extent of the blade wall which screens half of this area, this imposition is not considered unreasonable and a condition is included in the recommendation to this end.

 

In summary and subject to the above inclusion, which is catered for by way of an appropriate condition of consent, the proposed development is considered to achieve and acceptable level of view sharing for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposal has been substantially amended to reflect a proposal generally compliant with the applicable planning controls and which embodies an acceptably sensitive and skillful design.

·      The proposal in its amended form retains seated and standing views form various parts of the existing dwelling at 28 Mermaid Avenue.

·      The proposal in its amended form which significantly reduces the height of the structures forward of the main building envelope; and as further amended by the inclusion of a transparent balustrade to the lower rise section of the front ground floor balcony, demonstrates that reasonable measures have been taken to mitigate potential view impacts.

·      Having regard to the age of the existing single storey dwelling house at 28 Mermaid Avenue (approximately 75 – 80 years old), the construction of a new dwelling and or alterations and additions to this dwelling would likely include a first floor component that would facilitate a substantial enhancement of views currently obtained from that dwelling.

·      The proposed development in its amended form reasonably protects and enhances views from the public domain.

 

7.5 Swimming and Spa Pools

The DCP includes the flowing controls in this regard.

 

Controls

i) Locate behind the alignment of the front building facade.

ii) Locate to minimise damage to the root system of existing trees on the adjoining properties, as well as trees on the subject site proposed or required to be retained.

iii) Locate to minimise noise impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

iv) The coping level of the pool must relate to the topography of the site. On sloping allotments, the higher side of the site must be excavated, so that the pool structures do not protrude more than 1m above ground level (existing) on the lower side.

v) Setback the outer edge of pool coping a minimum of 900mm from the rear and side boundaries.

vi) The side and rear setback areas must incorporate screen planting extending along the full length of the pool. The planting must be capable of reaching a mature height of not less than 3m. This requirement may not apply where there is a need to retain existing view corridors from adjoining and nearby properties.

Vi

i) Position any decking away from the side and rear boundaries to minimise adverse privacy impacts on the neighbours.

vii

i) Locate the pool pump and filter away from the neighbouring dwellings. The equipment must be contained within an acoustically treated enclosure that limits noise generation.

 

Despite the above controls, due to the steep topography of site in this locality, the construction of swimming pools above garages and forward of the front building line is well established within the immediate locality.

 

Given this established form of emerging development in this regard, the proposal satisfies the intent of the controls in that:

·      Conditions of consent are included in the recommendation which will ensure the reasonable protection of the existing Pine tree at 28 Mermaid Avenue.

·      The height of the garage and pool structures is commensurate with the height of similar structures in the street and relates acceptably with existing and likely future developments on adjoining properties.

·      The setback of the outer edge of pool coping is a minimum of 1800mm from side boundaries.

·      Low rise planting is to be provided within side boundary setbacks.

·      Standard conditions are included in the recommendation requiring acoustic enclosure of swimming pool pump and filters (which will be located with the enclosed lower ground floor building envelope).

 

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 complies with the relevant assessment criteria will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

A.     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. 915/2015 for demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new three storey dwelling house containing living areas and 4 bedrooms with basement car park and storage, front swimming pool and balcony areas, a rear terrace area, associated site works and landscaping at No. 30 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The privacy screen adjacent to the first floor guest room and balcony area on the western elevation 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. The extent of opening of the screen must not exceed 45 degrees as it opens from right to left. Details are to be clearly indicated on the construction certificate plans.

 

b.     The privacy screen adjacent to the ground floor kitchen window on the western elevation 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. The extent of opening of the screen must not exceed 30 degrees as it opens from right to left. Details are to be clearly indicated on the construction certificate.

 

c.     The concrete balustrades extending north from the blade walls to the southern edge of the swimming pool on the front elevation are to be constructed of transparent glass to allow a view through from the neighbouring property. Details are to be clearly shown on the construction certificate plans.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 30 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D53/15

 

 

Subject:                  10/311-313 Maroubra Road, MAROUBRA (DA/617/1997/D)

Folder No:                   DA/617/1997/D

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 application to modify the consent adding privacy screens and balustrades to the roof terrace of Unit 10.

                                      Original consent: 3 storey residential flat building with 10 units and semi-basement parking for 12 cars

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                The Owners Corporation of Strata Plan 64375

Owner:                        Palmpoint Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview47849.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to Council and an independent assessment of this application, including preparation of this report, was completed by Plandev (urban planning consultants) and referred to Council for determination as a submission was received from a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The subject site accommodates a 3 storey residential flat building containing 10 dwellings which was approved by Council in 1998 (DA 617/1997). Condition 7 of the original development consent required fixed planter boxes around the edge of the roof terrace serving unit 10 to minimise overlooking of the adjoining properties. The planter boxes serving the roof terrace for unit 10 were removed without Council’s consent.

 

Council approved a Section 96 modification application (DA 617/1997/C) on 11 June 2013, which included the installation of frosted glazing above the masonry balustrade at the periphery of the terrace in lieu of the planter boxes.

 

This Section 96 modification application seeks approval to remove some of the approved privacy screens above the masonry balustrade at the edge of the roof terrace.

 

The proposed modification was notified in accordance with Council’s public notification requirements and concerns were raised by neighbours to the south with the potential privacy impacts to their properties.

 

The proposed modification is supported subject to conditions.

 

1.    The Subject Site and Surrounding Area

Immediately to the west is a service station fronting Maroubra Road and an adjacent side laneway known as Clio Lane. To the east is a single storey dwelling house at No. 315 Maroubra Road. At the time of writing this report, a development application seeking approval for the construction of a residential flat building is currently being assessed by Council. Land adjoining to the south contains the rear yards of dwellings houses fronting Haig Street. Views from the subject roof terrace to adjoining properties are depicted in Figures 1, 2 and 3.

 

2.    Details of the Proposed Modifications

The Section 96 application seeks approval to modify the approved privacy screens as follows:

 

·       reduce the height of the approved privacy screens at the southern edge from and splayed south-eastern edge from 1600mm to 1560mm (i.e. a reduction of 40mm);

·       replace the approved privacy screen along the eastern and western edge of the roof terrace with a stainless steel handrail 250mm above the masonry balustrade; and

·       replace the approved privacy screen along the northern edge of the roof terrace with a stainless steel handrail 100mm above the masonry balustrade.

 

photo 2

Figure 1View from the southern edge of the roof terrace showing the rear deck of the property at No. 70 Haig Street and the rear yard of the adjoining property at No. 68 Haig Street which is partially screened by existing vegetation

 

photo 1

Figure 2View from the southern edge of the roof terrace showing the rear yard of the adjoining property at No. 66 Haig Street (in the foreground) and No. 64 Haig Street.

photo 3

Figure 3View from the western edge of the roof terrace showing the adjoining commercial property at No. 309 Maroubra Road. 

 

3.    Submissions

 

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

 

·      70 Haig St, Maroubra

·      Unit 1/74 Haig St, Maroubra

·      72 Haig St, Maroubra 

 

The issues raised in the submissions relate to the proposed modifications to the approved privacy screens and the potential for overlooking and privacy impacts.

 

4.    Key Issue

 

Privacy Impacts

 

The unauthorised removal of the fixed planter boxes from the roof terrace serving unit 10 has increased the potential for overlooking the rear of adjoining properties to the east, south and west when standing at or near the edge of the roof terrace.  The potential impacts are compounded by the large size of the terrace (approximately 112m2), which is suitable for intensive activities and large groups of people.

 

The previously approved modification application included a 640mm high frosted glazed screen atop the south-eastern (splayed) masonry balustrade creating a 1.6m high privacy screen and a 540 high glazed screen atop the southern, western and eastern balustrade walls creating a 1.5m high screen. This application seeks approval to replace the approved privacy screens along the northern, eastern and western edge of the roof terrace with a handrail above the masonry balustrade.

 

The potential privacy impacts associated with the proposed modifications are examined below:

 

To the south

 

The proposed modification seeks to lower the approved privacy screen above the masonry wall by 40 mm resulting in a 1.56 m high privacy screen. Further discussions were held with the applicant on site, and it was agreed that the approved height of 1.6m would be retained along the southern edge, including the splayed corner. The proposed modification to the approved privacy screen at the southern edge of the roof terrace is not supported.

 

To the east

 

The proposed modification seeks to replace the approved screen along the eastern edge of the terrace with a steel handrail 250mm above the masonry wall. This would result in the potential for overlooking the adjoining property at No. 315 Maroubra Road. At the time of writing this report, a development application seeking approval for the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building, plus a roof terrace is under assessment by Council. The roof terrace proposed at No. 315 Maroubra Road is at a similar height to the roof terrace on the subject site. Council supports the proposed modification to replace the privacy screen with a handrail at the eastern elevation because there are no windows proposed along the western elevation of No. 315 Maroubra Road facing the subject site. Furthermore, the proposed roof terraces at No. 315 Maroubra Road includes a 1.58m wide planter box and 1.3m high balustrade at its western edge to mitigate the potential for overlooking to the subject site. However, it is recommended that the approved privacy screen is retained along part of the eastern elevation for a distance of 2.78m from the splayed corner to mitigate oblique views to the south. Also, there is no guarantee the development would proceed at No. 315 Maroubra Road if it is approved. Therefore the protection of the amenity of the existing residents is a matter for consideration in accordance with Council’s privacy controls. Currently, there are direct views into the rear yard of the property of 315 Maroubra Road when standing at the edge of the eastern masonry balustrade. A 1 m wide planter box along the eastern edge of the terrace (where there is no privacy screen above the balustrade) would prevent standing at the edge of the balustrade downward views into the rear yard of No. 315 Maroubra Road. Condition 7 in the development consent is modified accordingly.

 

To the west

 

There are existing views from the roof terrace on the subject site to the under developed commercial property to the west at No. 309 Maroubra Road. Due to the commercial nature of the property the privacy impacts are minimal. The generous size and configuration of the property at No. 309 Maroubra Road, which is a corner site and zoned R3 Medium Density, is conducive for redevelopment in the future for residential purposes such as a residential flat building. However, no DA has been lodged with Council to date, and no known pre-DA discussions have been held with Council officers in relation to the future development of this property. In any event the design of any future residential development would need to consider the potential privacy impacts to adjoining properties. In this regard the Council considers the proposed modification to replace the privacy screen with a handrail above the masonry balustrade as reasonable and is therefore supported.

 

To the north

 

The proposed modification also seeks to remove the approved privacy screen along the northern edge of the terrace in lieu of a handrail. This change is not supported as it may increase the potential for overlooking the adjoining terrace serving unit 5, which is lower than the subject terrace.  The proposed modification to the approved privacy screen at the northern edge of the roof terrace is not supported.

 

5.    Section 96 Assessment

The proposal has been lodged as a S96(2) application which allows for the modification of an existing consent if the Consent Authority:

 

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

 

Prior to assessing the application in relation to the acceptability of any potential environmental impacts, it must be determined whether the proposed modifications result in a development that is "substantially the same" as that which was originally approved. The proposed modification seeks to modify the approved privacy screens along the edge of the roof terrace to unit 10. The proposed development would not change the overall built form or use of the building and is therefore considered to be substantially the same as that approved under the original DA.

 

(b)      it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

 

Not Applicable.

 

(c)      it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)  the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

 

The proposed modification request has been notified in accordance with Council’s public notification policy.

 

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

 

All submissions have been considered in the assessment of the application.

 

(3)     In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 79C (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

 

 Refer to discussion in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this assessment report.

 

(4)     The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.

 

Noted.

 

6.    Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

6.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under LEP 2012.  The relevant objective of the R3 zone seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents. Subject to the retention of privacy screens along the southern and south-eastern edge of the terrace, the proposed modification would not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

7.    Policy Controls

7.1 Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 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. 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.)

 

Part C2 Section 5.3 Visual Privacy

 

The privacy controls seek to ensure a reasonable level of privacy between neighbouring properties, which is achieved through the implementation of design measures, including minimum floor to sill heights of 1.6m, offsetting windows and privacy screens. This application proposes to modify the approved privacy screens. As stated previously, the proposed modification would not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to adjoining properties, subject to conditions.

 

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.

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 privacy controls in DCP 2013.

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 proposed development is not considered to result in detrimental social or amenity impacts on the locality.

 

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

 

The site currently operates as a ‘residential flat development’.

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

 

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

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

The proposal satisfies the relevant objective 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.

 

 

9.    Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and development.

 

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

10. Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

11. Conclusion

 

The proposed modification satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development.

 

Subject to retaining the approved privacy screens along the southern, northern and part of the eastern edge of the roof terrace, the proposed modification to the approved privacy screens is acceptable.

 

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     THAT Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No. DA/617/1997/D for permission to modify Conditions 1 and 7 as follows:

 

Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

“1.    The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 9717 1,2,3,4 and dated 22 October 1997 the shadow diagrams No. SH01, SH02, SH03 and dated 3 October 1997 and the landscape drawing No. 970701 and dated October 1997 and on the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans dated 15/10/12 and received by Council on 10 December 2012, and as further amended by the Section 96 plans dated 02/02/15 and received by Council on 4 February 2015, except as may be amended  by the conditions specified hereunder:

 

Amend Condition 7 to read:

 

 “7.   The roof terrace serving unit 5 shall be fixed planter boxes around the periphery of the roof     with a minimum of 500mm and height of 500mm and shall be appropriately landscaped. The roof terrace serving unit 10 shall have fixed privacy screens comprising frosted glass at a height of a 640mm above the southern, south-eastern (splayed), eastern (for a distance of 2.78 m from the splayed corner) masonry balustrade and frosted glass at a height of a 340mm above the northern masonry balustrade and a stainless steel handrail 25mm above the western and eastern masonry balustrade. A 1 m wide planter box shall also be provided along the eastern edge of the terrace to prevent views down into the rear yard of No. 315 Maroubra Road.

 

Details of compliance shall be submitted with the Local Approval application and shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.”

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D54/15

 

 

Subject:                  2 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/883/2014)

Folder No:                   DA/883/2014

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a multi-unit dwelling housing development comprising of 5 x 2 storey townhouses and basement parking, associated site and landscape works.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Brenchley Architects

Owner:                        W C Scott and P M Walton

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview40668.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

 

 

Proposal

The proposal involves the demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development comprising of 5 x 2 storey townhouses and basement parking, associated site and landscape works.

 

Basement parking is provided for 2 car spaces per dwelling for total of 10 spaces, internal laundry space within each garage and common garbage storage area.

 

Each dwelling has living, kitchen, dining store and bathroom areas on the ground floor and 3 bedrooms (master with ensuite and walk-in-robe) and a central bathroom at first floor level.

 

Landscaping is proposed within the building surrounds including a swimming pool for the rear dwelling.

 

A number of issues were advised on April 8, 2015 and by response dated May 15, 2015, the applicant provided amended plans providing a greater level of articulation to the building, a streetscape elevation, shadow diagrams at hourly intervals during the winter solstice and September equinox; and a more substantial view loss assessment.

 

This report is based on the amended plans and with the benefit of the additional information provided.

 

Site

The subject site is known as 2 Beach Street, Clovelly and formally described as Lot 22 in DP 5397. The site is a regular shaped allotment with a 15.24 frontage to Beach Street and a total site area of 780.8m2.

 

The land has a fall from west to east of approximately 2m over the depth of the site representing a grade of approximately 4% and a slight cross fall from south to north.

 

The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling house and rear outbuilding which will be demolished.

 

To the north the site is adjoined by the rear yard areas of dwelling houses fronting Burnie Street and to the south and west multi-dwelling housing developments.

 

The locality comprises a mix of residential development including detached and semi-detached dwellings, multi-unit developments, and some residential flat buildings.

 

The subject site is also within close proximity to the following:

 

·      800m of several educational establishments including Clovelly Public School, St Anthony’s School, University of NSW (Cliffbrook Campus) and St Catherine’s School;

·      120m north of Clovelly Road and 50m east of Arden Street which have regular bus services connecting this area to the CBD and other eastern Sydney suburbs;

·      420m north west of Gordon’s Bay and 580m north west of Clovelly Beach;

·      150m north east of the Clovelly Road shops and Burnie Park 50m to the north.

 

Figure 1: Beach Street view of Subject Site (Source: ABC Planning)

Figure 2: Beach Street view of 20 Burnie Street (Source: ABC Planning)

Figure 3: View of adjacent development at 4 Beach Street  (Source: ABC Planning)

Figure 4: View along Beach Street further south of the subject site. (Source: ABC Planning)

 

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:

 

·      1A Burnie Street, Clovelly

·      12 Burnie Street, Clovelly

·      14 Burnie Street, Clovelly

·      16 Burnie Street, Clovelly

·      18 Burnie Street, Clovelly

·      20 Burnie Street, Clovelly

·      3 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      Strata Management on behalf of 4 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      Unit 1, 4 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      Unit 2, 4 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      Unit 3, 4 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      Unit 4, 4 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      Unit 5, 4 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      5 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      6A Beach Street, Clovelly

·      8 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      8A Beach Street, Clovelly

·      11 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      19 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      Unit 5, 55-57 Arden Street, Clovelly

 

Issue

Comment

Block wall to the northern boundary which addresses the rear of properties at 12-20 Burnie Street should be rendered to provide a reasonable visual interface.

A condition to this end is included in the recommendation.

Lack of parking and increased on street parking is unacceptable having regard to lack of existing on street parking in the locality.

The proposal provides 10 spaces which exceeds the resident requirement but is short 1 visitor space. This has been assessed and supported by Council’s Development Engineer as acceptable as the extent of non-compliance is minor and 2 spaces are provided for each of the proposed dwellings.

Cumulative reduction in on street parking is causing parking across driveways and dangerous maneuvers from driveways.

The proposal is non-compliant by 1 car space and has been supported by Council’s Development Engineer as acceptable as the extent of non-compliance is minor and 2 spaces are provided for each of the proposed dwellings. Illegal parking in front of driveways has been referred to Council’s Compliance section.

Acoustics due to the elevated position of 55-57 Arden Street cause unacceptable noise levels from surrounding properties which will be exacerbated by the proposed development.

The proposed development will result in a single townhouse to the rear common boundary with this property and should not cause unreasonable noise impacts. In any event due to a deficient amount of deep soil planting for the entire development the proposed swimming pool at the rear of the site is recommended to be deleted which should assist in the reduction of acoustic impacts to ensure a reasonable level of mutual amenity.

Increased overshadowing during morning hours will affect sunlight access to rear unit at 55-57 Arden Street.

See assessment of solar access to surrounding properties in Key Issues section of this report.

Inadequate outlook to a solid back of building with unnecessary unused roof space from the rear of the property at 55-57 Arden Street.

The location and design of the proposed development provides for an outlook from surrounding properties in accordance with that envisaged within the R3 Medium Density residential zone.

Privacy to the rear of 55-57 Arden Street will be compromised if the existing trees at the rear of the site are not maintained.

The proposed development includes the retention of some vegetation at the rear of the subject site. Due to the variation in site levels between properties the ground floor level of the proposed development will not cause privacy impact and the upper level comprises bedroom areas only. The privacy screening required by conditions at this level will provide for an acceptable privacy interface.

Concern that existing trees to be retained at the rear of the property will not survive the construction and the proposed additional trees will cause problems if not pruned appropriately. 

The proposed landscaping concept, subject to enhancements which will be facilitated by conditions of consent, is considered acceptable and the pruning of trees for maintenance between properties is an issue between the respective owners.

Pool will have an impact on the existing vegetation and cause unreasonable acoustic privacy impacts.

Whilst a pool in this location is not necessarily an unacceptable inclusion on this occasion due to the inadequate overall deep soil planting proposed, this facility is recommended to be deleted to provide for more deep soil planting.

Notice to residents was inappropriately timed over Christmas which gave unfair opportunity for submissions to be lodged.

The proposal was advertised in accordance with Council’s adopted policy during this time of year and not over the Christmas break. In any event an extension of time to lodge submissions was granted when requested and final submissions were received from the identified properties above.

Development is too extensive for the site.

The proposed development is within the maximum floor space and height controls permissible under the RLEP. Other departures from the DCP controls are addressed in the Key Issues section of this report.

Concern regarding excavation and construction.

Standard conditions are included in the recommendation to reasonably ensure protection to surrounding properties during excavation and construction.

Inadequate deep soil planting adjacent to southern boundary and adjoining townhouse development resulting in an overly bulky visual impact.

See assessment of deep soil area in Key Issues section of this report.

The angled screen for the full 40m length of the building presents an institutional feel which is totally unacceptable from a design perspective and aesthetically inadequate.

The amended plans provide for a greater level of articulation by the inclusion of blade walls and a revised privacy screen arrangement mentioned above will have the effect of improving the external appearance of the building.

Shadow diagrams are inaccurate and do not clearly show the impact on the living and courtyard areas of the adjoining development to the south.

Amended shadow diagrams taken at hourly intervals during both the winter solstice and the September equinox allow for an accurate assessment of solar access impacts. See assessment of solar access to surrounding properties in the Key Issues section of this report.

Impact of the proposed development on solar access appears to rely on existing development (and associated impacts) at 4 Beach Street whereas the latter has a reduced overall height and impacted 1 residential property only.

See assessment of solar access to surrounding properties in the Key Issues section of this report.

Proposed development should be redesigned to include 2 pavilions with a total of 4 townhouses as this would improve sunlight access

See assessment of solar access to surrounding properties in the Key Issues section of this report.

The proposed development is on a lower section of the hill yet raises to a height of approximately 1.2m above the height of the adjoining development at 4 Beach Street. As such the proposal does not relate adequately to the natural ground levels of the subject site.

See assessment of solar access to surrounding properties in the Key Issues section of this report. A lowering in the height of the building is recommended to relate better to surrounding properties.

The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal complies with the applicable FSR and height controls under the RLEP and the resultant built form is within that envisaged under the zone.

The rear setback does not comply with the DCP or the requisites for departure.

See assessment of rear setback in the Key Issues section of this report.

Air conditioning units should not be placed on the southern side to the building (noted-none proposed at DA stage).

Air conditioning units would need to comply with applicable acoustic standards.

View to Waverley Cemetery form upper bedrooms of Unit 5, 4 Beach Street will be completely obstructed.

See assessment of view sharing in the Key Issues section of this report.

Loss of privacy to rear of properties in Burnie Street.

The ground floor areas of the proposed development will be suitably screened by way of a masonry wall of at least 1.8m above the respective floor level. First floor areas are to bedrooms only and will be screened to provide for adequate mutual levels of privacy.

Increase in noise from car parking areas and pool facility to properties in Burnie Street.

The proposed car parking area provides for a total of 10 spaces and should not cause unacceptable impacts. The swimming pool is recommended to be deleted to increase deep soil planting areas which will eliminate this perceived problem.

Detraction from the character of the street by reducing open space, trees and gardens.

Conditions of consent which will require a relocation of the stormwater detention tank will allow for a retention of some existing plantings and an acceptable presentation of the development to Beach Street.

The character Californian Bungalow is the last of its kind in the streetscape and should be retained.

The existing dwelling on the property is not a heritage item and the demolition in association with the proposed multi-dwelling housing development is in accordance with that envisaged under the zoning.

Side boundary fencing to Burnie Street properties presents an unacceptable visual impact.

See assessment of fencing in Key Issues section of this report.

Raised terrace levels higher than existing ground level exacerbates the visual dominance of the building when viewed from the properties in Bernie Street is further worsened by the inclusion of the aluminium screen.

See assessment of deep soil area and fencing in the Key Issues section of this report.

Inadequate setback of excavation to the boundary of properties in Burnie Street.

Standard conditions are included in the consent which will ensure the reasonable protection of amenity to surrounding properties during excavation and construction.

Overlooking impacts should be reduced by: a covering of the window openings only and not the entire façade, screens should be horizontal not vertical, fixed and angled to the sky at 45 degrees.

 

Conditions are included in the recommendation to provide for a more effective privacy screening arrangement.

Inadequate detail has been provided in relation to plant areas and associated acoustic treatment.

Standard conditions are included in the consent with regard to maximum acoustic levels from associated plant and equipment.

Inadequate landscaping is provided along the northern boundary of the subject site.

The recommendation includes a requirement for amendments in the landscape plan to include boundary planting to alleviate the hard surfaced interface when viewed from the properties in Burnie Street. See assessment of fencing in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 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. 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.)

 

Deep Soil Area

 

The objectives of the DCP in regard to landscaped open space and deep soil area are:

 

·         To provide landscaped open space of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

·         To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

·         To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

·         To improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design.

 

Whilst the plans and accompanying documentation assert compliance with the landscaped area and deep soil planting requirements of the DCP (i.e. 50% and 25% respectively), it is evident the proposal includes substantial hard surfaced areas and several areas included as deep soil planting do not satisfy the definition in the DCP.

 

Notwithstanding, the following enhancements to the landscaping concept are included by way of appropriate conditions in the recommendation which will improve the overall balance of hard and soft surfaced areas within the development and provide for an acceptable integration with adjoining properties:

 

·         As per the Development Engineer’s comments: the stormwater detention tank is recommended to be relocated to allow for a retention of some existing plantings in the front yard area which will assist in an acceptable presentation of the development to the streetscape; the provision of plantings adjacent to the southern boundary to grow to a minimum of 3m in height.

·         Above podium planter box areas (increased in size in the amended plans) along the northern boundary will also allow for the inclusion of plantings which will support plantings to a 3m height at maturity.

·         The front section of the ground floor terrace is recommended to be reduced in width to align with the basement level which will provide for a greater landscaped area width at the front of the building and have the dual effect of providing a more consistent front setback alignment in relation to the adjoining townhouse development to the south.

·         The pool is recommended to be deleted to increase the amount of deep soil planting area at the rear of the building which will have the dual effect of alleviating identified acoustic concerns from an adjoining owner to the west.

 

With the above inclusions, the landscaped area will be in the order of 21% however represents a landscaping concept which more appropriately integrates with the proposed development and surrounding properties.

 

The departure is supported on this occasion.

 

Rear Setback

The objectives of the DCP in regard to setbacks are:

 

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

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

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

 

The specific controls in relation to rear boundary setbacks are:

 

Controls

i)    For residential flat buildings and multi4dwelling housing, provide a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater.

 

ii)   For attached dwellings, provide a minimum rear setback of 25% of the allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser.

 

      Any garages fronting rear lanes may encroach upon the rear setback areas.

 

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

_    Allotments with an irregular shape.

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

_    Allotments with the rear boundary abutting a laneway.

_    A central courtyard is provided in the development.

 

The proposed rear setback is 7m to basement and ground floor levels and 6m – 7m at first floor level. The Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) makes the following comments in relation to rear setbacks:

 

Complies.

15% of the allotment is 7.68m. The proposed development provides a 7m rear setback, which falls short of the DCP requirement by 680mm. This is considered acceptable given that 4.785m of the rear setback is deep soil landscaping, comprised of 2 x mature trees, and a further 2.265m is a paved terrace.

 

The rear setback is also greater than the neighbouring townhouse development to the south.

 

Despite the evident non-compliance and the fact that the proposal does not strictly qualify for variation according to the stated criteria, the departure is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·         The departure for the most part relates to a setback of 7m versus 7.68m required with the exception of a small first floor bathroom component (setback 6m for a width of 2.5m) which will improve the amenity of the rear unit. In numerical terms the departure based on 7m represents a departure of less than 10% which is considered minor.

 

·         The proposal in its current form will ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and air circulation. The solar access and view sharing impacts are addressed in this of the report.

 

·         The area within the rear setback is contiguous to the rear unit and will allow for the retention and creation of open space and deep soil planting.

 

·         The rear setback is consistent with the setback of the adjoining development to the south.

 

Building Envelope

Building Design

The DCP provides the following objectives and controls in this regard:

 

Objective

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

 

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

 

Controls

i)      Buildings must be designed to address all street and laneway frontages.

ii)     Buildings must be oriented so that the front wall alignments are parallel with the street property boundary or the street layout.

iii)    Articulate facades to reflect the function of the building, present a human scale, and contribute to the proportions and visual character of the street. Design solutions include but are not limited to:

 

·      Defining a base, middle and top section related to the overall scale and mass of the building.

·      Expressing the internal layout or structural system of the building via revealing elements, such as columns, beams, floor slabs and party walls.

·      Using a variety of window types and openings to create a pattern or reflect the interior uses (for example, a living room window versus a bathroom window).

·      Selecting balcony types that respond to the living

·      amenity, building orientation and context:

·      cantilevered balconies, partially or fully recessed balconies, and Juliet or French balconies.

·      Detailing balustrades to reflect the type and location of the balconies.

·      Incorporating weather and sun protection devices appropriate to the orientation of the building elevation, such as eaves, awnings, hoods,

·      louvres, pergolas and the like.

·      Articulating building entries with porticos, awnings and the like.

·      Articulating vertical circulation space (such as stairwells) with recesses, blade walls, bays and the like.

·      Adopting a combination of materials and finishes.

·      Using vertical gardens (that is, landscape planting mounted on building elevations).

·     

iv)    Avoid massive or continuous unrelieved blank walls. This may be achieved by dividing building elevations into sections, bays or modules of not more than 10m in length, and stagger the wall planes.

v)     Conceal building services and pipes within the balcony slabs.

vi)    Alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building must present an integrated design with suitable facade configuration, materials and detailing, so that the new and retained structures are visualised as one whole building"

 

The application as originally submitted included a “feature privacy screen” which surrounded the entire first floor of the development extending beyond the parapet wall height of the proposed roof form. The height of the structure is approximately 4.4m.

 

The SEE made the following comments in relation to this aspect of the building design:

 

Complies.

The proposed development provides a 2 storey form to Beach Street with a timber feature privacy screen. The development is not bulky in height or scale and the compliant overall and deep soil landscaping provides an adequately landscaped setting for the proposed development.

 

 

Figure 5: Image of the proposed development which highlights the attractive and modest street presentation. (Source: ABC Planning)

 

The applicant was requested to revise this aspect of the proposal to demonstrate that the structure did in fact achieve the identified principal objective of providing privacy and also to reduce the extensive nature of the screen. The applicant has responded with an inclusion of some gaps in the screen as depicted in the images below however the extensive nature continues to be present.

Figure 6: Revised front elevation to Beach Street (Source Brenchley Architects)

 

 

Figure 7: Revised typical side elevation (Source: Brenchley Architects)

 

The response in the revised SEE in this regard is as follows:

 

1.   Privacy Screen

In relation to the proposed privacy screen, provide a detailed section at 1:50 is required demonstrating how the screening will in fact achieve adequate levels of privacy to surrounding properties. A reconsideration of the extensive nature of the screening in conjunction with greater articulation of the building and combined with lowering the overall height of the development so as to relate more appropriately with the streetscape and surrounding developments is strongly encouraged.

Noted.

A detailed section of the privacy screen has been provided in Drawing Number 2014-041-A19.

 

The privacy screen is a natural anodized aluminum which has been designed to be 50% transparent, is of a fixed nature and has a dimension of 100mm x 100mm with 90mm openings. The proposed privacy screen is typical in nature and is commonly used to eliminate privacy impacts between neighbouring properties, which is often implemented at the request of Council.

 

Furthermore, the proposed first floor windows have been reduced in width and blades are now proposed to allow for greater privacy within the bedroom areas as well as providing for an appropriate degree of articulation.

 

It is also noted that a typical dwelling house has compliant side setbacks of 0.9m – 1.2m which therefore creates an approximate separation distance of 1.8m – 2.4m between neighbouring properties. As such, the proposed 3m setbacks from wall to boundary are considered to be more than adequate, providing for a similar, if not improved relationship between the respected townhouses than a complaint 3 storey dwelling house. The proposed setbacks, passive nature of the first floor bedrooms and proposed privacy and vegetative screening provides for an adequate level of privacy

 

In relation to the articulation of the building, this has now been achieved through the introduction of rendered masonry blade walls which reduces the degree of privacy screening. In any event, the articulation of walls relates to residential flat buildings and bears no weight upon multi-dwelling houses (i.e. townhouses).

 

The site is located within the R3 Medium Density zone and is afforded a maximum overall height of 9.5m and a maximum wall height of 8m. The proposal complies with both of these numeric controls.

 

In accordance with Section 79C (3A) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the proposed development is not required to comply with a more onerous standard and therefore the proposed height has been retained.

 

 

The submission advocates the principal intention of the screening to achieve privacy. As addressed under the Visual Privacy section of this report, the screening does not achieve this purpose as it provides for 50% openings that will allow for substantial overlooking capacity from upper level bedrooms. The reduction in the width of the openings to a maximum of 25% would normally increase the apparent bulk and massing of the structure. However, as the screening extends around various sections of blank wall. Therefore and as addressed in the Visual Privacy section of this report the breaking up of the screen to include maximum 25% openings across windows and 50% openings to sections of blank wall will provide for further visual relief whilst retaining the design intention.

 

Conditions to this end are included in the recommendation.

 

Solar Access to surrounding properties

The objectives of the DCP in regard to solar access:

 

·      To ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximises solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces, and is encouraged to all other areas of the development.

·      To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

·      To provide adequate ambient lighting and minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

 

The proposed development provides excellent solar access to both the living and open space areas of the proposed dwellings.

 

The proposed development does not however comply with the solar access requirements in relation to surrounding properties. The controls are:

 

Solar access for surrounding development

i)      Living areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours access to direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (mid-winter).

ii)     At least 50% of the landscaped areas of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight to a part of a window between 8am and 4pm on 21 June (mid-winter).

iii)    Where existing development currently receives less sunlight than this requirement, the new development is not to reduce this further.

 

The SEE made the following comments in relation to the originally submitted shadow diagrams which did not include any details of impacts on elevation to the townhouse development immediately to the south:

 

Non-compliant.

Shadow impacts are inevitable on this east-west orientated site and are consistent with that generated by the adjoining townhouse development. The southern side setback is greater than required while the southern wall is also lower than permitted. The combination of these aspects ensure that the resultant shadow impacts are not unreasonable. They could also be less than associated with a dwelling house that could be erected under complying development.

 

Due to the non-compliance with the DCP requirements evident and acknowledged in the original submission, impacts at hourly intervals were requested during the winter solstice and September equinox and delineating shadow cast differentiating the proposed screening and the building itself.

 

The response to this request included the following information in the revised SEE:

 

Complies

The plans have been amended to provide hourly shadow impacts during both the winter solstice and September equinox.

 

It is considered that the resultant shadow outcomes associated with the accompanying diagrams represent a reasonable outcome given the context of the locality and the vulnerability of the north-facing windows of the adjoining property.

 

It is considered that shadow impacts are inevitable on such east-west facing allotments.

 

The comparison between a 2-3 storey building envelope prescribed by the DCP and that allowed by the DCP (2 storey multi-unit dwelling) shows that any form of redevelopment as sought will have inevitable shadow impacts.

In this instance, the proposed multi-unit housing performs better in terms of reducing the overshadowing impacts and retaining solar access to neighbouring properties, particularly given that the neighboring property has north-facing side boundary windows. Furthermore, it is noted that a 3 storey dwelling house would continue to block any solar access to Units 1-3 of No. 4 Beach Street during the winter solstice, which therefore produces the same overshadowing implications, as the proposal continues to retain 3 hours of solar access on June 21st to Unit 4 and Unit 5 of 4 Beach Street.

Figure 8: Proposed development within a compliant envelope (Brenchley Architects)

 

It is also noted that this form of development is typically of this immediate locality (as shown in the attached diagram) and therefore such overshadowing is anticipated within this environment and contemplated by the DCP controls. Therefore it is considered that the proposal demonstrates a reasonable outcome in regards to overshadowing.

 

From the revised shadow diagrams provided it is evident that the proposed development includes shadow impacts that do not satisfy the requirements of the DCP. This situation is created essentially by the following elements of the proposed development:

 

·            A ground floor level which is projected above NGL for the majority of the building footprint.

·            Inclusion of a roof form which includes a total height alone of the roof of 2.7m.

 

The resultant development as a combination of these inclusions rises to a proposed ridge height 1.2m higher than the adjoining and most affected development to the south despite a steady incline in ground levels to the south along Beach Street. The applicant on request has submitted a streetscape elevation as detailed below purporting to demonstrate the compatibility with amongst other buildings the relative heights and overall presentation to the streetscape.

Figure 9: Streetscape Elevation(Brenchley Architects)

From the image it is noted that in respect of the building envelopes shown to represent the “permitted envelope”, the proposed development is the only one which extends to the maximum allowable height and equates to the actual height of the building 3 properties removed to the south of similar configuration to the streetscape (i.e. 2 residential floors above a partially excavated basement). Furthermore in relation to the existing built form, the relative actual height of the immediately adjoining development to the south is more relevant in terms of establishing an acceptable relationship given that that development was constructed less than 20 years ago.

 

The Land and Environment Court has established planning principles in relation to sunlight access in the case of The Benevolent Society v Waverley Council [2010] NSWLEC 1082. Commentary in relation to the relevant points is provided:

 

Where guidelines dealing with the hours of sunlight on a window or open space leave open the question what proportion of the window or open space should be in sunlight, and whether the sunlight should be measured at floor, table or a standing person’s eye level, assessment of the adequacy of solar access should be undertaken with the following principles in mind, where relevant:

 

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

 

Comment:

The permissible density on the site is a FSR of 0.75:1 and a maximum height limit of 9.5m. This is the lowest residential density for residential flat development under the RLEP controls. The proposal complies with the applicable FSR and height controls.

 

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

 

Comment:

Photographic information at hourly intervals from 8am to 4pm on June 7, 2015, provided by the owners of the central unit No 3, 4 Beach (and which can be reasonably extrapolated to the winter solstice on June 22), in addition to the revised shadow diagrams provided by the applicant indicate that all townhouses within that development currently receive sunlight to a portion of the courtyard areas and living room window openings for at least 3 hours per day. This light may be filtered by existing vegetation on the subject site depending on the location of the townhouse.

 

The proposed development will result in a loss of all sunlight access to courtyard areas during the entire day (winter solstice) with the exception the rear town house No 5 which will receive limited to acceptable sunlight access between 2pm and 4pm.

 

In relation to window openings to living areas (winter solstice) no townhouse within the adjoining development to the south will receive any sunlight between 8am – 10am. Townhouses 1 to 3 will receive a very limited amount of sunlight between 11am and 12.00pm and will otherwise be entirely overshadowed by the proposed development. Townhouse 4 will receive limited to reasonable sunlight access between 11am and 1pm. Townhouse 5 at the rear will receive well in excess of the minimum required sunlight under Council’s DCP controls.

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

 

Comment

In terms of skillful design in order to achieve reasonable sunlight access to surrounding properties it is evident the assertion on the part of the applicant is essentially that the building is setback 3m from the southern boundary being 500mm in excess of the DCP and complies with maximum allowable building height of 9.5m; therefore any associated impacts are acceptable. However the proposed building is considered arbitrarily high, with a simple reliance on compliance with the maximum height controls rather than the result of a sensitive design analysis in order to achieve a better and less non-compliant impact in relation to sunlight access to the most affected property.

 

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

 

Comment:

As per previous comments in this section.

 

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

 

Comment:

As per previous comments in this section.

 

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

 

Comment:

No hedge type vegetation currently exists along the relevant common boundary. The existing and proposed fence heights have been taken into account. Otherwise, as per previous comments in this section.

 

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

 

Comment:

As discussed previously in this section of the report, given the approximately 20 year age of the adjoining development to the south and likely life of the building, the actual height of the building is more relevant for the purposes of this exercise.

 

Summary:

Having regard to the analysis contained within this commentary, the resultant impacts on sunlight access to the most affected property at No. 4 Beach Street are not considered consistent with the planning principle. Furthermore, the following amendments could be readily incorporated to reduce the overall height of the building by 1m without unreasonably compromising the design or adding significantly to the cost of the development:

 

·      A lowering of the basement by 300mm to accord with the alignment levels provided by Council’s Development Engineer and included in the recommendation.

 

·      A reduction in the height of the roof storage area by 700mm by a combination of reducing the height of the parapet wall and internal head height (the maximum height of the roof area is approximately 2.7m in height in its current form). Alternatively, a slight reduction in the ceiling height of the first floor level could also be made if the desire is to retain more headroom within the storage area.

 

The recommended amendments will allow for some sunlight access to windows openings to the front 3 affected townhouses and improve sunlight access to both living room and courtyard areas of all townhouses during the September Equinox according to the shadow diagrams provided by the applicant.

 

Under the above circumstances the impacts on sunlight access to surrounding properties would be considered to be in accordance with the intentions of the DCP and the Land and Environmental Court principle. Moreover, the reductions in height in the form recommended will facilitate the following additional benefits:

 

·      The overall height of the development will relate better to the adjoining development to the south and the height of buildings within the streetscape as it rises to the south.

 

·      The lowering of the garage level will facilitate a development which more accords to the NGLs of the subject site.

 

·      Allow for a reduction in proposed boundary fencing by 300mm which will provide for a better visual interface to surrounding properties.

 

Conditions in accordance with the above are included in the recommendation.

 

Visual Privacy

The objectives in the DCP in this regard are:

 

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

 

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

 

The proposal by way of proposed masonry walls to side and rear boundaries should provide for adequate visual privacy to surrounding properties from ground floor levels of the proposed development (see also Fencing in this section of the report).

 

The proposal includes an extensive screening of the development at first floor level to a height about 400mm above the height of the parapet wall to the roof structure. As a result, the structure is approximately 4.4m in height. Images of this screening are shown in figures 5 -7 above.

Detail at a scale of 1:50 requested of the applicant shows that the screens will provide for 50% openings which in effect will not effectively provide privacy to adjoining properties from the full height bedroom windows on the northern and southern elevations of the proposed development. To comply with the DCP the screen should have maximum openings of 25%. In this regard it is evident that the screen extends over various sections of blank wall which can retain the spacing to allow for a maximum of 50% openings. In front of window openings the spacing should comply with maximum openings allowance under the DCP of 25%. The combination will provide adequate privacy interfaces with adjoining properties and contribute to the articulation of the building.

 

Appropriate conditions are included in the recommendation in the above  regard.

 

View Sharing:

The DCP outlines the following objectives and controls in relation to view sharing.

 

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In assessing view sharing the NSW Land and Environment Court has developed a planning principle relating to view sharing based on the case of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140, to which Council must also have regard.

 

Concerns were raised from the owner of unit 2 No. 4 Beach Street regarding distant views to Waverley Cemetery obtained from the upper level bedroom area. A more comprehensive view loss assessment was requested of the applicant.

 

The revised view loss assessment as per the Tenacity Principle has been addressed by the applicant as follows:

 

2.   View impact assessment

Provide a view impact assessment in accordance with the requirements of the DCP and the Tenacity Principle in relation to the contended view loss Waverley Cemetery from the development at No. 4 Beach Street.

Complies

A view impact assessment in accordance with the requirements of the DCP and the Tenacity Principles has been provided in Table 2 below.

 

It is considered that the response below provides a full justification and satisfies Councils concerns in relation to potential view loss associated with the proposed development.

 

RESPONSE TO TENACITY PRINCIPLES

 

Table 2: Principles of view sharing: the impact on neighbours

Response to the Tenacity Principles

1.   Assessment of views to be affected

Response:

The views that are to be affected are from Unit 1 and Unit 2 of Number 4 Beach Street, being the views across the site boundary to the Waverley Cemetery. Unit 1 and Unit 2 currently have partial views of a portion of the Waverley Cemetery.

2.   What part of the property the views are obtained

Response:

The views are currently obtained from the windows of first floor bedrooms, being passive areas and are obtained across the northern side boundary of the site, which are therefore difficult to protect and retain. For the view to be retained, the development would have to be of size and scale that is consistent with a single storey living environment, rather than a 2-3 storey environment, as stipulated by the Randwick LEP and DCP controls.

 

It is therefore considered that the view loss to the Waverley Cemetery is in evitable in this instance, given the subject site is located within a Medium Density Residential zone and that the proposed dwelling is already well contained within the allowable building envelope controls.

 

3.   The extent of the impact

Response:

Views to the Waverley Cemetery are currently obtained from Unit 1 and Unit 2 of No. 4 Beach Street. It is understood that Units 3-5 of No. 4 Beach Street do not currently enjoy such views.

 

The extent of view loss to these Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 100%. As stated above, the views are enjoyed from passive living areas, being the bedrooms of the first floor level. It is therefore considered that these views are not valued as highly as if the views were from main living and dining areas.

 

Given these views are distant, not iconic and viewed from a bedroom on an oblique angle, the impact is considered to be minor (as shown in the below photograph).

 

Waverley Cemetery

 

View from Unit 2 bedroom across the site boundary to the Waverley Cemetery

4.   The reasonableness of the proposal

Response.

The proposed development is considered to be a reasonable outcome on the site given that it complies with the land use zone, height and FSR of the Randwick LEP 2012.Furthermore, the proposal is fully contained within a compliant building envelope, as illustrated on the accompanying plans. The proposal is also compliant with all front, side and rear setbacks (predominately but greater than rear of southern neighbor), deep soil and landscaping, car parking and private open space. It is therefore acknowledged that the view loss associated with the development does not arise as a result of non-compliance with the applicable planning controls. Furthermore, it is reasonable to suggest that a different design would also incur the same view loss impacts, unless it was of a bulk and scale that is more consistent with a R2 Low Density Residential zone, rather than what is anticipated by the current zoning of the site.

 

Furthermore, the proposed development is of a similar design, shape and scale to the surrounding multi-dwelling housing developments that dominant this urban block, as illustrated in the accompanying locality diagram.

 

It is therefore argued that the view impact of this complying development is considered acceptable and the view sharing is reasonable.

 

Considering that the view is obtained from a bedroom across a side boundary and having regard the compliant form of the proposed development which will be further reduced in height in accordance with conditions included in the recommendation, the view loss assessment provided justifies the development notwithstanding the associated view loss identified.

 

Fencing

The DCP includes the following Objectives and controls in relation to fencing:

 

 

Objectives

·      The alignment, configuration, rhythm of bays, height, materials, colours and texture of new fences complement the building on the site and the streetscape.

·      Fences are designed to achieve a balance between privacy, safety and security for the building occupants and visual interaction with the public domain, without adversely affecting the amenity of the pedestrian environment.

·      Fences are designed to minimise opportunities for graffiti and malicious damage.

 

General Fencing

Controls

i)   Fences are constructed with durable materials that are suitable for their purpose and can properly withstand wear and tear and natural weathering.

ii)  Sandstone fencing must not be rendered and painted.

iii)  The following materials must not be used in fences:

_ Steel post and chain wire

_ Barbed wire or other dangerous materials

iv) Expansive surfaces of blank rendered masonry to street frontages must be avoided.

 

The proposed front fencing comprises open panel raw hardwood fencing to a height of 1.8m. Whilst the fencing height in Beach is generally low rise, the open nature of the proposed fencing will allow for a reasonable presentation to the streetscape.

 

The DCP outlines the following controls in relation to side and rear boundary fencing:

 

7.3 Side and Rear Fencing

 

Controls

i)        The maximum height of side, rear or common boundary fences is limited to 1800mm, as measured from the ground level (existing).

ii)       For sloping sites, the fence must be stepped to follow the topography of the land, with each step not exceeding 2200mm above ground level (existing).

iii)      In the scenario where there is significant level difference between the subject and adjoining allotments, the fencing height will be considered on merit.

iv)      The side fence must be tapered down to match the height of the front fence once past the front façade alignment.

v)       Side or common boundary fences must be finished or treated on both sides.

 

In respect of the southern adjoining townhouse development, existing block wall fencing is provided to the courtyard areas of the respective town houses on that property. As no information has been provided on elevation regarding the comparative heights of existing and proposed fencing, it is difficult to establish the relationship between the proposed block wall fencing in relation to that on 4 Beach Street. Given the level of the entry pathway to town houses which is consistent with the ground floor level of all proposed dwellings, a fence height of 1.8m there above should provide adequate mutual levels of privacy to respective ground floor areas.

 

The proposal shows a height of fencing which increases towards the rear. Unless the height of the rear section of fencing as proposed is to match that of the adjoining development, any increase in height is not justified. A condition is included in the recommendation that will limit the height of fencing along this boundary to a maximum of 1.8m above the floor level of the proposed ground floor and or the height of the fencing on the adjoining property, whichever is the greater.

 

In relation to the northern boundary, the proposed masonry wall similarly is proposed at 1.8m above the ground floor level of the dwellings and respective courtyard areas in respect of the first 3 dwellings. Due to the elevated ground floor level the masonry wall has a height of between 2.5m and 3.5m above NGL. In relation to the 2 westernmost dwellings the proposed fencing rises to a height of between approximately 2.6m – 2.6m above the floor level of the dwellings and associated courtyards and as a consequence a maximum height of 3.3m above NGL despite the consistency in the floor level of those townhouses. The SEE in this regard makes the following comments:

 

Complies.

The northern side fence will consist of a masonry wall which will provide sufficient visual and acoustic screening to the northern neighbours along Burnie Street.

 

Notwithstanding the comments, once again the additional height above the maximum allowable of 2.2m above NGL on sloping sites is not justified for that section of wall which exceeds 1.8m above the floor level of the dwellings.

 

The lowering of the floor level of the garage and ground floor level by 300mm as provided for within the recommendation will facilitate a reduction in the height of the wall in relation to the front section of the wall (to the first 3 dwellings). An appropriate condition is included in the recommendation restricting the height of the northern boundary wall to the 2 westernmost dwellings to a maximum height of 1.8m above the respective ground floor level and a maximum height of 2.2m above NGL in respect of rear yard area to the westernmost dwelling. The latter height is designed to take account of the existing swimming pool at the rear of No. 12 Burnie Street and provide for reasonable mutual levels of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Finally and as mentioned in the submissions section of this report, a condition is included in the recommendation that will require the rendering and painting in appropriate tone of the northern boundary wall.

With the above inclusions, the proposed fencing should relate acceptably with surrounding developments.

 

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

 

Subject to the amendments recommended in this report, the proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 883/2014 for demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a multi-dwelling housing development comprising of 5 x 2 storey townhouses and basement parking, associated site and landscape works at No. 2 Beach 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

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a.    The swimming pool at the rear of the westernmost dwelling is deleted from the consent.

 

b.    Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant/owner is to have the basement level plans amended to show the following:

 

The internal access driveway must be designed so as to match the Council issued alignment levels (concrete/paved level at the property boundary) which is RL 35.45 AHD

 

The internal access driveway must show a gradient of 1:9 for 7.20m into the site which will provide a basement level of RL 34.65 AHD

 

A longitudinal section of the driveway must be provided with the construction certificate plans, the sections shall demonstrate compliance with the Council issued alignment level at the property boundary, together with the abovementioned internal ramp grade of 1:9.

 

Any enquiries regarding the above matter can be directed to Council’s Development Engineers on 9399 0923.

 

c.    The height of the building is to be reduced by 1m in height to have a maximum height of RL 45.40 to be achieved in the following manner:

 

i.      By lowering the level of the basement semi basement car park in accordance with condition 2b above.

ii.     Lowering the height of the parapet wall to the roof by 400mm and

iii.     Lowering the height of the roof ridge line by 700mm.

iv.    The height of the privacy screen at first floor level is not to exceed the height of guttering to the roof.

 

d.    The privacy screens to all window openings must be fixed and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. The total area of any openings to privacy screens not covering window openings must not exceed 50% of the area of the screen.

 

e.    The southern boundary wall must not exceed 1.8m above the approved ground floor level and or the height of the boundary wall on the property at No. 4 Beach Street.

 

f.    The northern boundary wall must not exceed 1.8m above the approved ground floor level for the full length of the building (from east to west). The northern boundary wall to the rear yard area of the westernmost townhouse must not exceed 2.2m in height above ground level existing. The northern face of this wall for the full length shall be rendered and painted in a tone approved in the colours and finishes schedule required under condition 4 of the consent.

 

g.    The front balcony on the eastern façade of the easternmost unit is to be setback (approximately 900mm) for its full width to align with the basement level.

 

The amendments required by this condition must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report for 2 Beach St,Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                  14 July 2015

 

 

Development Application Report No. D55/15

 

 

Subject:                  44 Hooper Street, Randwick (DA/350/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/350/2015

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                    New front carport

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                D'Riva Designs

Owner:                        Mr E Y Hsu & Ms F P L Leung

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The subject application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Stavrinos, Andrews, Scott and Neilson.

 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for the construction of a new carport structure forward of the building alignment.

 

Figure 1: Subject Site, 44 Hooper Street

 

Site

The site is located on the northern side of Hooper Street just west of Hooper Lane. The lot presently contains a two level detached dwelling house, with a hardstand car space located directly in front of the building alignment.

 

The site has a frontage to Hooper Street of 6.28m and a total site area of 259.3m2 (as per survey). The site has a depth of 41.3m and is rectangular in shape. The topography of the site slopes down from the east of the site to the west. The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation.

 

Development in the locality is characterised by low density residential development including, primarily, detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and attached dual occupancy development. The scale of existing development on surrounding sites varies between single storey and two stories in scale.

 

Figure 2: Subject site (highlighted in red)

 

Submissions

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

 

Key Issues

 

Carport

 

The proposed carport forward of the building line, as seen in figure 2 below:

 

Figure 3: Proposed carport (site plan and elevation)

 

The objectives of the RDCP 2013 seek to ensure that car parking structures do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape and will be integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element.

 

At present there is an existing hardstand car space in front of the dwelling (seen below in figure 4), which is accessed by the existing driveway and provides off street parking for one vehicle.

 

Figure 4: Subject site (proposed carport shown in red)

 

The subject application seeks to construct a carport in front of the existing dwelling with 125mm front setback.

 

The RDCP 2013 includes specific controls in Sections 6.1. 6.2 and 6.6, that relate to carport structures forward of the building line.

The proposed carport structure does not meet the relevant objectives outlined in Section 6.1, specifically that the proposed carport structure will dominate the property frontage and streetscape. The subject site is located on the northern side of Hooper Street, the northern side of the street is characterised by single/two storey dwellings and semi-detached developments with an uniformed front setback, consisting of landscaped and permeable spaces (as shown in Figure 5 below).

Figure 5: Looking east along Hooper Street (red is the proposed carport location)

 

The proposed carport will dominate the visual perception of the dwelling and disrupt the visual catchment to the subject site, which contributes to the streetscape character. It is acknowledged that there are several examples of garage structures along the northern side of Hooper Street (shown below in Figure 6), these structures are located approximately 100m away and are situated on sites that have significant slope with the dwelling being elevated above the street level. There is also a garage structure at No. 27 Hooper Street (located 60m away, approved in 2009) on the southern side of Hooper Street. 

The subject site is not as elevated as other sites further west of Hooper Street, which makes the proposed carport structure appear as a dominating structure within the visual catchment of the immediate area and result in an undesirable outcome for the character of the streetscape. In addition it will set an undesirable precedent within the area.

Figure 6: Garage Structures (blue highlight), subject site (pink highlight)

The controls outlined in Section 6.2 of the RDCP 2013 permit a 3m single width carport in front of the front façade within the front setback areas only where:

·      There is no alternative, feasible location for accommodating car parking;

·      The site has a significant slope with the dwelling being elevated above the street level;

·      The carport will not adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and the surrounding areas;

·      The carport location will not pose an undue risk on the safety of pedestrians; and

·      The carport will not require the removal of significant landscape elements that enhance the streetscape, such as rock outcrop or sandstone retaining walls.

As noted above there is an existing hardstand car space with a width of 4.1m, The proposal seeks to construct a carport with a width of 3.8m which exceeds the maximum 3m external width as per the RDCP 2013.

Section 6.6, relating to Carport Configuration, includes numerical controls to restrict design of carport structures with relation to width and height. The controls in the RDCP 2013 states that the maximum width of a carport structure shall be no more than 3m and the maximum height for a carport structure with a flat roof to be no more than 2.6m. The proposal has a maximum width of 3.8m, which does not comply with the width control and further exacerbate its visual dominance and impact on the character of the immediate streetscape.

 

The proposed carport will result in a development that is inconsistent with the relevant objectives and controls outlined in the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012. It is considered that the proposed carport structure forward of the building line will result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the streetscape, the adjoining premises and the character of the locality and that the proposal is unsuitable for the subject site. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/350/2015 for a new front carport at No. 44 Hooper Street, Randwick, for the following reasons: 

 

1.     The proposed development does not comply with the relevant Objectives of Clause 2.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, R2 Low Density Residential in that the proposal does not recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape/built form and does not contribute positively to the desired future character of the area.

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives for Car Parking and Access as set out in Part C1, Clause 6.1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed carport structure forward of the building line will dominate the property frontage and streetscape.

 

3.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives for Car Parking and Access as set out in Part C1, Clause 6.2 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed carport structure forward of the building line will adversely affect the visual amenity of the street and surrounding area.

 

4.     The proposed development does not satisfy the controls for carport configuration as set out in Part C1, Clause 6.6 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the proposed carport structure exceeds the 3m maximum width control.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Report - Compliance Report - 44 Hooper Street, RANDWICK

Included under separate cover