RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 8 September 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                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

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, 8 September 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 - 11 August 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.

D62/15     198-202 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/901/2014).................. 1

D63/15     43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay (DA/337/2015).......................... 9

D64/15     7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/924/2014).................. 21

D65/15     352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/674/2014/A)....................... 57

D66/15     123-125 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee (DA/330/2015).............. 67

D67/15     18 McGowen Avenue, Malabar (DA/26/2015)........................ 75

D68/15     36 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay (DA/376/2015)............... 85

D69/15     221 Barker Street, Randwick
(DA/296/2015)..................................................................
91

D70/15     9-11 Baden Street, Coogee (DA/750/2013/B)...................... 99

D71/15     8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington - DA/181/2015............. 115

D72/15     14 Dawes Street, Little Bay (DA/509/2015)........................ 131

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting required)

M5/15       Planning Proposal (Spot Rezoning Application) - 1T Romani Way Matraville......................................................................... 139

M6/15       Amendments to DCP 2013- Newmarket Green DCP (Inglis Site)...................................................................................... 155

M7/15       Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 July to 26 August 2015..................................... 161    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Development Application Report No. D62/15

 

 

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

Folder No:               DA/901/2014

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Section 82A review of the determination for new landscape garden area with pergola roof at the rear of the existing cafe. Original proposal: New landscape garden area with pergola roof at the rear of the existing cafe

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mr F A Khan

Owner:                    Mr G Mauric & Mrs R A Mauric

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview53758.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Section 82A review application is referred to an external planning consultant for assessment and referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Proposal

 

Amended plans dated 29 May 2015 were provided as part of the Section 82A review.

 

The subject application proposes the following:

 

·           Authorise the use of a constructed pergola 10.36m x 10.4 and 3.19m in height;

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

·           Demolition of northern part of pergola to create entry door from staff car park;

·           Construction of 1.3m high screening wall along the rear and northern side of the pergola, the wall will screen the lower planter boxes.

·           Associated landscaping works surrounding the edge of the pergola and inside the pergola including planter boxes and water feature;

·           Construction of a glass partition wall between the approved courtyard dining area and the garden area; and

·           Installation of an aluminium framed, glass wall and louvres enclosing the approved outdoor dining area and separating it from the proposed garden. 

 

The purpose of amendments is to prevent customers accessing the garden and to reduce noise from the existing outdoor dining area.

 

Notwithstanding the glass wall, patrons could walk through a door in the approved toilet additions to access the garden. However, this will be discouraged through the Bazara Plan of Management, which states it is the staff and Shift Manager’s responsibility to prevent customers from entering the garden.

 

The additional Section 82A documentation supports the use of the area solely as a garden for the visual pleasures of customers. The garden will not be directly accessible from the restaurant area, with the only direct access being from the staff car parking area as shown in Figure 1 below.

 

Extract

Figure 1: Extract of Site/Floor Plan.

Extract Glass

Figure 2: Extract of Section Plan.

 

Site

 

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

 

The site is currently improved with a single storey restaurant with footway dining and additional outdoor dining to the rear.

 

A partially constructed unauthorized pergola has been constructed at the rear of the site measuring 10.36 x 11.06m, with a height of 3.19m. The approved outdoor dining area is separated from rear garden by clear plastic weather screening.

 

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

 

Photos of the site and locality are shown in Figure 3 and 4 below.

 

IMG_20150722_164026

Figure 3: Rear lane way.

 

IMG_20150722_163830

Figure 4: Existing (illegal) pergola and plastic weather screen covering outdoor dining area.

 

Relevant Site History

CDC/61/2014: Approval granted 19/03/2014 by Certis Building Certification for fitout of the existing tenancy for the use as a restaurant (indoor use only).

 

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

 

BC/41/2014: Building Certificate issued 17/07/2014 for the constructed mechanical ventilation system located on the roof of the single storey brick shop with concrete roof.

 

DA/186/2014: Approval granted 22/07/2014 for internal fitout and use of the premises as a restaurant (indoor and outdoor) with the following hours of operation:

 

·      Indoor Dining:        Mondays to Sundays 7am to 11pm and;

Sundays 7am to 10pm

 

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

Sundays 7am to 9.30pm

 

DA/901/2014: Refusal determined 14 April 2015 for pergola and garden area to the rear of approved restaurant (indoor and outdoor).

 

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 as part of the initial DA, however no submissions were received as a result of the notification process for this Section 82A review.

 

S82A Review

The proposed amendments satisfy the requirements of S82A as the proposed development will remain substantially the same.

 

Key Issues

The key issues raised in the original DA related to the potential for increased noise from patrons utilising the rear garden area and the potential for negative impacts on neighbouring properties. The following outlines those issues and discusses how the amended plans mitigate noise impacts.

 

·          Noise

Two objections were raised to DA/901/2014 regarding the potential for increased noise impacts on neighbouring properties. These concerns were based on limited control preventing customers from utilizing the rear garden area and the potential for the site being used as a waiting or gathering area.

 

The Section 82A Amendment states that the garden area will not be used by customers as the garden will primarily be used for the visual pleasure of customers. Further, an aluminium framed glass wall partition will restrict direct access from the restaurant to the garden. The amended documentation provided as part of the Section 82A review indicate:

 

·          Bazara Plan of Management: the shift Manager and staff will be responsible for restricting customers access to the rear garden and controlling noise;

·          Plans: the courtyard dining will be segregated from the garden by an aluminium framed glass wall; and

·          Plans: access to the garden will be limited to a side door accessed from the staff car parking area.

 

·          Noise Report

A Verification (Validation) of Compliance with Noise Control Criterion of Intrusiveness dated 7 January 2015 and a more recent letter dated 27 July 2015, were provided by Pollution Control Consultancy and Design.

 

As part of the Verification of Compliance Report a noise assessment was undertaken on the restaurant in its current form, which includes an approved partially open outdoor dining area to the rear of the site.

 

The outcome of the noise assessment state:

 

1)     The A-weighted, equivalent, fifteen-minute sound pressure level (L Aeq, 15min) emanating from Bazara restaurant complies with the Criterion of Intrusiveness [the LAeq, 15 Min emanating from Bazara Restaurant does not exceed 56 dB(A) at residential premises];

2)     Notwithstanding the compliance with the Criterion of Intrusiveness, noise from patrons sitting/dining at the rear outdoor area is audible both from of the apartments in 192-194 Marine Parade and at the residential boundaries in Fenton Street (we understand that this result in noise complaints);

3)     Music played inside Bazara Restaurant (the vocal singer playing guitar and pre-recorded music) is not audible at any residential premises.

4)     In our opinion the proposed pergola/garden would act as an effective noise buffer zone between the outdoor sitting area and Fenton Street, and it will reduce noise at the nearest residences in 192-194 Marine Parade and Fenton Street as the noise from the restaurant will disperse over a soft ground instead of the hard concrete surface (the noise will be absorbed by the ground instead of being reflected by the ground).

 

It should be noted that one dwelling did have a reading of LAeq, 15min of 56.4 dB(A).

 

The report concludes that Bazara is generally within the reasonable noise limits, as seen above, and that the additional landscaped area will further reduce noise.

 

Further, the additional letter concludes the additional ‘glass panel would be beneficial in further reduction of noise at the residential premises in Fenton Avenues’.

 

It is considered that the additional full length aluminium framed glass wall and louvres, in conjunction with the Bazara Plan of Management, will further reduce the noise by:

 

·          Preventing customers from utilizing the landscaped garden area; and

·          Blocking noise emanating from the existing outdoor dining / courtyard area.

 

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 and 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. DA/901/2014 for new landscape garden area with pergola roof and glass patrician wall at the rear of the existing cafe, at No. 198–202 Marine Parade, 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

 

5.       The pergola must remain as an open type structure in accordance with the architectural plans;

 

6.       The unauthorised pergola must be removed from the external wall of the building located on the southern side boundary.

 

17.     The Bazara Plan of Management must be amended to ensure compliance with all conditions of the consent and shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing of a construction certificate.

 

18.     The pergola area must not be used for habitable purposes and the rear proposed outdoor garden area must not be used for the serving and consumption of food or beverages and no seating shall be provided.

 

20.     The L10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background level (L90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) be more than 5dB between 7.00am and 12 midnight at the boundary of any affected residence. The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

22.     Amplified music, entertainment is not permitted within the proposed garden area.

 

23.     The side door linking the toilet to the outdoor area and the garden access gate must be closed at all times while the premises is occupied by patrons and management shall ensure that patrons do not use this exit to the rear garden.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 198-202 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Development Application Report No. D63/15

 

 

Subject:                  43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay (DA/337/2015)

Folder No:               DA/337/2015

Author:                    Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Use of the existing swimming pool as home based swimming school

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mr S A McFadyen

Owner:                    Mr S A McFadyen & Mrs G M A McFadyen

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview36543.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Not all submissions have been included in this map.

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The applicant was assessed by external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the applicant/owner is a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

Whilst the submitted Statement of Environmental Effects states that the proposed development is for a ‘home occupation’ that involves the use of the existing swimming pool within the rear yard for swimming lessons, it is appropriate to classify the proposed development as a “Home Business”.

 

The maximum number of pupils within each lesson is proposed to be 2 and the maximum number of swimming instructors is proposed to be 1.  Each class will extend for a duration of 30min.  The submitted plans indicate 2 waiting areas for within the existing paved pool surrounds. 

 

The originally proposed hours of operation (as notified to surrounding properties) were as following:

 

·                7am-7pm Monday to Friday

·                8am-4pm Saturday

·                9am-12pm Sunday

 

The applicant has amended the hours of operation to the following.

 

·                Monday to Friday 8am to 6pm,

·                Saturday 8am to 4pm and

·                Sunday 9am to 1pm.

 

The subject assessment is based on the amended hours of operation.

 

There are two (2) off-street parking spaces.  One (1) spot is proposed to be made available during class sessions. 

 

No physical changes to the existing buildings and landscaping on the site is proposed. No items will be sold or displayed, nor will any signage be erected related to the ‘home occupation’.

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 3 in DP 249 587 and addressed as 43 Dwyer Ave, Little Bay. It is located on the southern side of Dwyer Ave and has a street frontage of 15.24m. The side boundary to the east has length of 41.225m whereas the side boundary to the west has a length of 42.183m.  The total area of the site is approximately 636sqm.

 

The site consists of a single storey dwelling house and a detached double garage.  The detached garage is located at the rear, southwest corner.  Behind the dwelling house and to the eastern side of the double garage is an in ground swimming pool as indicated in the photo below.

 

20150623_104418

Photo 1: Facing southeast.  Swimming pool to the eastern side of the garage.

 

Photo 2:  Detached double garage at 43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay.

 

There is a vehicular accessway that extends from Dwyer Ave along the western side of the site and into the rear garage.  The driveway extends within the front building line setback to accommodate one car parking spot as indicated in the image below.

 

Photo 3:  Dwelling house and driveway at 43 Dwyer Ave, Little Bay

The site appears generally consistent in level.  Trees are generally limited along the frontage of the site and along the eastern and rea boundaries.  Paving is limited to the paved 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 its sides and rear with colourbond fencing. There is no fencing along the front boundary.

 

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

 

The site known as 41 Dwyer Ave adjoins the subject site to the west.  It is similar in size and shape to the subject site.  It consists of a single storey, dwelling house, of brick construction with pitched roof forms and a swimming pool within its rear yard. 

 

The site known as 45 Dwyer Ave adjoins the subject site to the east.  It is similar in size and shape to the subject site and consists of a single storey dwelling house, with a hipped roof form and garage setback behind.

 

The rear boundary of the subject site adjoins the rear boundary of the properties known as 14a and 14b Dawes Street.  They each contain an attached dual occupancy development.

 

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

 

Photo 4: Dwelling house and landscaping within the front setback at 43 Dwyer Ave, Little Bay.

 

Photo 5: Dwelling house at 41 Dwyer Ave, Little Bay.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Three (3) objections and Thirsty-one (31) submissions of support were received as a result of the notification process:

 

The objections were received from the following properties:

·          14b Dawes Street, Little Bay (2 objections)

·          16 Dawes Street, Little Bay

Table 1 | Objectors Issues (First Notification Period)

Issue

Comment

Objector: 14a Dawes Street, Little Bay

 

Unacceptable noise on weekends impacts on the backyard use, especially early proposed start.

 

Would accept 9am-12pm on Saturday

10am – 12pm on Sunday

To minimise the impact in the morning, a condition is recommended to require the first class to be no earlier than 9am on Saturdays and 10am on Sundays.  No concerns are raised to the end time on Saturdays as:

- It will not extend late at night, (to more sensitive hours),

- The neighbouring backyard location, being the main primary open space is adjacent to the proposed use, and thus this is representative of a layout / design outcome in terms of acoustic impacts, i.e. locating noise-generating areas adjacent to each other.

- The recommended conditions of consent to control the acoustic impacts, as discussed in the accompanying compliance report and section below ‘Acoustic Impact’.

Objector: 16 Dawes Street, Little Bay

 

Unacceptable noise from use over 7 days due to instructors and children, especially in relation to more than one instructor vocalising for the class duration with repetitive instructions, children crying and screaming, and parent conversations.

 

Refer to section below ‘Acoustic Impact’.

Objector: 14b Dawes Street, Little Bay

 

Operation of a commercial back yard swimming pool will adversely impact on my privacy, lifestyle and health.

 

Privacy is compromised due to flow of visitors who sit in backyard and have conversations.

 

Lifestyle is affected because of constant disturbance and unbearable noise levels.

 

My health may decline further as I suffer from hypertension and with constant noise and disturbance my stress levels increase. During hot weather I was not able to enjoy fresh air and cool shade of my backyard.  I had to retreat inside with windows closed and no airflow.

The definition of the proposed use is discussed in the accompanying compliance report.

 

The impacts of concern would be appropriately controlled as a result of the recommended controls discussed in the section below ‘Acoustic Impact’.

 

It should also be noted that given the limited number of people present during each lesson, any noise from conversations would be limited in the context that the subject site will remain in use as a residence, in which it is not unreasonable to expect that greater numbers of guests may be present on social occasions such as family parties, BBQs and general use of the private open space. This use could also entail the use of the pool by the land owner and their guests.

 

Lessons may involve 2 children but this is misleading when you consider at change-over times there could be as many as 12 or more visitors on the premises during ten minute span each half hour

 

The impacts of concern would be appropriately controlled as a result of the recommended controls discussed in the section below ‘Acoustic Impact’.

Unacceptable hours covering 71 hours per week

A condition is recommended to restrict the hours of operation.

 

I refute the point ‘noise generated by this business is equivalent to the noise generated by any family children playing in a rear yard/pool’.  Children do not play in a pool over a range of 71 hours a week.

 

A condition is recommended to restrict the hours of operation, spacing of classes and number of attendees.  

 

Unacceptable number of traffic movements

A condition is recommended to restrict the hours of operation, space out classes and reduce the number of attendees.  This will reduce traffic impacts.  The spacing of classes will minimise the number of attendees at any one time, traffic noise and demand for on-street/off street parking.

 

My house is setback 15m from the pool and within the house the noise still carries through at a disturbing level. My backyard setting from the teaching areas is around 2m and the noise is unbearable.

The impacts of concern would be appropriately controlled as a result of the recommended controls discussed in the section below ‘Acoustic Impact’.

The business will impact on the residential nature.  Normal business hours are fine in a commercial environment but not a residential one.

The proposal is for a ‘home business’ not a ‘business’ premises.  The impacts of the home business with respect to the definition of ‘home business are discussed in the accompanying compliance report in the section ‘Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012’.

 

Support:

 

1.     5 Undine Street, MAROUBRA.

2.     33 Horner Avenue, MASCOT.

3.     10 Landy Street, MATRAVILLE.

4.     36 Broome Street, MAROUBRA.

5.     13 Adina Avenue, PHILLIP BAY.

6.     Unit 28/125 Banksia Street, BOTANY.

7.     Unit 3/266A Bunnerong Road, HILLSDALE.

8.     16 Flinders Street, MATRAVILLE. 

9.     41 Dwyer Avenue, LITTLE BAY.

10.   6 Reservoir Street, LITTLE BAY.

11.   Unit 5/99 Clovelly Road, RANDWICK.

12.   29 Carnegie Circuit, CHIFLEY. 

13.   9 Lindsay Street, PHILLIP BAY.

14.   Unit 1/4A Carr Street, COOGEE.

15.   13 Wilson Street, BOTANY.

16.   47 Australia Avenue, MATRAVILLE.

17.   47 Dwyer Avenue, LITTLE BAY (x2).

18.   47 Nurla Avenue, LITTLE BAY.

19.   44 Dwyer Avenue, LITTLE BAY.

20.   1251 Anzac Parade, MALABAR.

21.   23 Nurla Avenue, LITTLE BAY.

22.   38 Dwyer Avenue, LITTLE BAY.

23.   1 Wilkes Avenue, MATRAVILLE.

24.   Unit 101/26 Harvey Street, LITTLE BAY. 

25.   14 Dampier Street, CHIFLEY.

26.   7 Storey Street, MAROUBRA.

27.   14a Dawes Street, LITTLE BAY.

28.   3 local residents.

 

Key Issues

 

Acoustic Impact

The main noise sources of the proposed use will be: vehicles and people coming to and from the premise, conducting of classes (instructors, students and spectators) and noise from the movement of water.

 

Interference to the amenity by reasons of noise and traffic generation will be appropriately controlled and minimised if the following restrictions are applied to the proposed home business.  Conditions are recommended to be included in a consent to outline these restrictions.

 

§  Hours of operation are to be limited within 9:00am till 6:00pm Mondays to Saturday and 10:00am till 1:00pm on Sundays.

§  Classes shall not extend for more than a duration of 30 minutes. 

§  Each subsequent class shall be allocated at least 30 minutes after the end of the previous class.

§  The maximum number of attendees during classes (other than the employee and existing residents) must be limited to four (4) (This includes the number of students and any family members).

 

The spacing of classes will minimise the number of attendees at any one time, traffic generation impacts and demand for on-street/off street parking.

 

The applicant has also submitted an acoustic analysis to support the use of the Site. The analysis indicates that the acoustic impact of the use will be satisfactory for the reasons listed below.

 

1.        Noise levels associated with the use of the pool for swim classes will vary depending on the activities being conducted at any time.  Noise levels associated with classes will generally quiet use as the classes include constant supervision. 

 

Activities associated with the proposed pool at 43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay, is no different to the use of gardens for children play areas, barbeques and the like of other residential properties.  As such, the control of noise impact to neighbouring properties is managed by limiting use of the terrace such that high noise generating activities are not generated during sensitive periods, such as night time periods.

 

2.        The location of the pool will not generate a reduction in acoustic amenity to the neighbouring receivers and the potential for noise generated from the classes will be less that the potential noise generated from the ground floor areas from other neighbouring properties associated with general resident use. Residential use of the neighbouring properties may include noisy activities such as human voices, recorded music, children playing and the like. The noise levels generated from the proposed swim classes will be significantly less than other general residential use activities.

 

3.        Noise from the swim classes will include human voices and noise from the movement of water. This noise level will comply with the requirements of the NSW EPA INP of Background Noise + 5 dB(A) and the typically adopted Randwick Council noise level criteria.

 

Of concern is the continuation of the noise impacts during a single day.  This impact will be appropriately controlled by the above recommended restrictions.

 

Proposed Use - Home Business

The subject development application (DA) proposes a ‘home business’.  This use is permissible in the zone. 

 

The proposed use will be consistent with the definition of ‘home business’.  Conditions are recommended to require the following to ensure the amenity impacts are appropriately controlled:

 

§  Provision of general bins near the pool.  (This may include the existing standard Council bins for garbage and recycling or smaller general waste bins).

§  Waste water is only drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water and any overflow is drained away from the neighbouring buildings as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises.

§  Hours of operation are to be limited within 9:00am till 6:00pm Mondays to Saturday and 10:00am till 1:00pm on Sundays.

§  Classes shall not extend for more than a duration of 30 minutes. 

§  Each subsequent class shall be allocated at least 30 minutes after the end of the previous class.

§  The maximum number of attendees during classes (other than the employee and existing residents) must be limited to 4 (this includes the number of students and any family members).

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is permissible under the residential zone of the land with consent.  The applicant has sought the consent of Council for the use as a ‘home business’.

 

The use will have a reasonable impact on the surrounding residential amenity subject to compliance with the conditions recommended above.  The development will provide an equitable balance between economic use of land, and impacts on surrounding lands.  An adequate amount of car parking facilities will be available to cater for the demand.

 

 

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. 337/2015 for the use of an existing swimming pool and immediate surrounds as a home business to allow for swimming lessons, at No. 43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay, 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

 

Swimming Pool Treatment

2.       Any swimming pool chemical treatment chemical must be stored in the existing garage or enclosed space away from any landscaped areas and stormwater drainage measures.  Sufficient supplies of appropriate absorbent materials and/or other appropriate spill clean-up equipment shall be kept on site to recover any liquid spillage external to the swimming pool.  Liquid spills must be cleaned up using dry methods only and shall not give rise to an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

 

General Waste Bins

5.       A general bin shall be maintained near the swimming pool facility for the disposal of any general wastes.  (NB: This may include the existing standard Council bins for garbage and recycling or smaller general waste bins).

 

Home Business Use

6.       The approved ‘home business’ for swimming lessons within the existing swimming pool must comply with the following:

 

-     Hours of Operation: 9:00am – 6:00pm Mondays through to Saturday and 10:00am – 1:00pm on Sundays.

-     Each class shall not extend for more than a duration of 30 minutes. 

-     Each subsequent class shall be allocated at least 30 minutes after the end of the previous class. 

-     The maximum number of attendees during classes (other than the employee and existing residents) must be limited to four (4).  This includes the number of students and any family members.

-     The formal ‘waiting area’ is be limited to that area (as marked on the approved plans) to the eastern side of the shed. 

-     No part of the existing paved access to the western side of the swimming pool shall be used as a waiting area.  Temporary seating can be placed on the adjacent grassed area (i.e. in between the paved access and swimming pool fence), but must be removed immediately after use. 

-     No elevated diving podiums/platforms are to be installed and used.

 

7.       All existing essential services on the subject site shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the relevant service provided, in particular to the satisfaction of Sydney Water in relation to the swimming pool and waste water.  Waste water must be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of Sydney Water.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Development Application Report No. D64/15

 

 

Subject:                  7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (DA/924/2014)

Folder No:               DA/924/2014

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Amendment to the approved DA/822/2013 by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, increase the floor area at lower ground and ground floor levels, new cabana at lower ground floor level, increase the size of the terrace area at ground and second floor levels, new balcony on the southern elevation at first floor level, changes to openings on all elevations, and increase the overall height of the dwelling to RL33.07

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               CM Hairis Architects

Owner:                    Ms M Eleftheriades

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview48711.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report
The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed floor space ratio exceeds the standard under Clause 4.4 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%.

1.  Proposal

 

The development application is amending the approved development issued under DA/822/2013. It seeks various changes the most notable of which include the following:

 

Pool undercroft level RL14.50 (Lowered by 70mm from RL15.20 to RL14.50)

·      Remove Lift between Pool undercroft and Lower Ground Floor level above

·      Remove access path to deleted lift

·      Reconfigure layout replacing WC/Shower with store area in undercroft pool level

·      Relocate stair access from middle of rear yard to pool undercroft area to southern side boundary

·      Pool undercroft area lowered by 700mm from RL15.20 to RL14.50.

·      Pool floor level lowered by 200mm from RL15.20 to RL15.00

 

Lower Ground floor level (Lowered by 100mm from RL17.60 down to RL17.50)

·      Delete void area along southern side of pool area, increasing pool coping and landscaping.

·      Remove rock ledge and replace with new Cabana extending beyond foreshore building line (increasing floor level by 250mm from RL16.90 to RL17.15).

·      Increase depth of coping alongside pool at southern side replacing void area (approved under DA/822/2013) with landscaping (note landscaping level reduced by 100mm from RL17.60 down to RL:17.50).

·      Increase excavation at front to accommodate additional floor area for a reconfigured media room, laundry and an external bathroom added at the rear of the approved lower ground floor level adjacent to the patio area.

 

Ground floor (Remains as approved at RL21.20)

·      Kitchen area extended and reconfigured ground floor level including relocated guest WC from southern side to northern side and addition of internal stairs along the northern side of ground level

·      Extend ground level open terrace area 1500mm further to the rear cantilevering over the lower ground level

·      Lift increased in size:

·      Water tanks relocated to lower ground floor level (subfloor – not viewable from public domain or neighbouring properties)

·      Terrace (cantilevered) is lowered by 100mm

 

Entry Level (Remains as approved at RL24.50)

·      Increase size of lift

·      Reconfigured storeroom and WC at southern end of entry level

·      Laundry chute added

 

First floor level (Increased by 70mm to RL27.22 from approved level RL27.15)

·      Front balcony deleted and new balcony added to southern side elevation.

·      Reconfiguration of first floor level.

 

Second floor level (increase by 170mm to RL30.07 from approved level RL29.90)

·      Front balcony deleted

·      Reconfiguration of robe and bedroom

·      Altered stair location

·      Increase size of terrace at rear

 


 

Roof level (increased by 170mm to RL33.07 from approved by condition 2 g. at RL32.90)

·      Rear roof level increased by 170mm from RL32.90 to 33.07 to a maximum height of 9.47m.

·      Front roof increased from RL32.60 to RL32.87

·      Skylight deleted

·      Relocation of solar panels

 

Notes:

·      The applicant has submitted Clause 4.6 exceptions to the development standards for building height and floor space ratio under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP).

·      The applicant has submitted amended plans reducing the length of the cabana so that it does not protrude beyond the foreshore building line.

·      The applicant has submitted an engineering statement indicating the structural instability of the rock element at the rear of the site.

·      The applicant does not object to a reduction in width of the pool coping area along the southern side of the site

·      The applicant does not object to the restriction on the lift only providing access to the bedroom 4 and not directly to the top level terrace.

 

2.  History:

 

DA/822/2013: Approved at Ordinary Council meeting on 22/07/2014 for the Demolition of existing dwelling, and construction of a new five (5) storey dwelling comprising the following;

 

·          Basement level: Media, gym, laundry and bathroom areas;

·          Ground level: Living, sitting, dining and kitchen areas;

·          Entry level: Double garage accessed from Seaside Parade. Entry, living space and voids. Small east- facing balcony associated with living area;

·          Level one (1): Three (3) bedrooms, two (2) bathrooms, small east and west facing balconies associated with bedrooms:

·          Level two (2): Fourth bedroom with associated bathroom and wardrobe areas. Roof terrace and garden east- facing.

 

Landscaping and site works, comprising the following:

 

·          Tiered landscaped areas with decking, pergola, ponds, landscaping and planters. Inclusive of retaining works across the site;

·          In-ground swimming pool corresponding to lower ground floor level, with subfloor area with bathroom, storage, plant room and lift elevator;

·          Terrace area (conditioned reduction to remove cantilever);

·          Roof garden at levels one (1) and two (2);

·          Roof plant including photovoltaic cells;

·          Boundary fencing to front and side boundaries of varying height.

 

Non-standard conditions imposed:

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.     The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and as indicated in red on the approved plans. The amendments shall be made to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a.     The cantilevered ground floor terrace at the rear of the dwelling shall be reduced in length by 3200mm prior to issue of a construction certificate, as indicated in red on the approved plans;

 

b.     Further detail of fencing on northern and southern side boundaries shall be provided to Council, with the boundary profile of 5 Seaside Parade corrected to accurately reflect the fall of the land. Fencing shall generally measure 1800mm in height when measured at existing ground level on 5 Seaside Parade’s side of the boundary and shall not exceed 2200mm where stepping is necessary;

 

c.      The front fencing shown to the Seaside Parade boundary on the approved plans shall be no higher than 1800mm above existing ground level at any point;

 

d.     The pergola structure shown at the rear of the site along the eastern boundary shall be deleted prior to the issue of a construction certificate;

 

e.     Any retaining wall encroaching upon the Foreshore Building Line must be constructed or clad with sandstone;

 

f.      Lift, pool and air conditioning plant and equipment shall be contained within an acoustically treated enclosure sited centrally within the property;

 

g.     Solar panels and plant shown on the roof of the development shall not be elevated or inclinated to have the effect of increasing the approved maximum height of RL 32.9.

 

3.  Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Seaside Parade, at the intersection of Seaside Parade and Edgecliffe Ave. The site has single frontage (14m wide) to Seaside Parade with its rear boundary (14m wide) oriented to the east coast. The topography of the site falls significantly to the coast, having a variance of around 11m between the front of the site at Seaside Parade and the rear of the site on the coast. The site has a total area of 670.3sqm with varying side boundaries of 50.29m at the northern side and 46.635m at the southern side.

 

A two (2) storey dwelling is presently contained within the site. As noted earlier, approval has been granted for a development on the site under DA/822/2013 – see below. The surrounding development is residential, consisting mostly large contemporary dwellings along the foreshore within the predominately low density residential zone.

 

Street photo


 

4.  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012)

 

The amending DA requires consideration of the standards for building height, floor space ratio, excavation, foreshore building line, and foreshore scenic protection area.

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density Residential. The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the zone having regard to the relevant matters discussed throughout this report and compliance report.

Height of Building (Max)

9.5m

9.54m

No*

 

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.6:1

0.67:1

 

No*

 

*See exceptions to these development standards below.

 

4.1     Clause 4.6 Request to vary a Building Height development standard – RLEP

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

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard of Clause 4.3: Building Height, contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

4.1.2  Clause 4.3 Building Height of the RLEP 2012

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

 

Height

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal – Building

9.54 at the lift overrun along the northern elevation

Excess above RLEP Standard

0.42%

 

Figure 1 | Northern elevation demonstrating 9.54m overall height of the lift overrun (along a 1.85m length of the northern elevation). The proposed development exceeds the 9.5m maximum height standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

Request to vary development standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Assessment comments:

The proposed development will exceed the maximum permissible building height along a limited portion of the northern elevation based on the RL’s provided on the survey plan. It is considered that the justification provided in the applicant’s written request has sufficient planning merit, as discussed below. It is recognised that the predominant main roof and bulk of the development although also increasing as part of this application will nonetheless comply with the overall building height standard under the RLEP 2012.

 

The main consideration is whether or not the additional height caused by the non-compliant height will result in a significant impact to the amenity of the streetscape and the neighbouring properties in comparison to a compliant situation.

 

Having regard to streetscape character, the lift overrun is located well away from the front of the development, which has a apparent overall height of around 8.07 above the footpath level in front. The overall scale of the proposed development will continue to be generally consistent with the existing and likely scale of development along this side of Seaside Parade and the proposed development will not detract from or compromise the desired future streetscape character.

 

The most salient aspect of the non-complying overall height relates to the potential for amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties such as visual amenity, overshadowing and view loss – a key objective under the RLEP for the R2 zone and the height standard.

 

In relation to overshadowing, the non-complying portion of the overall height standard is located on the northern side and will not create additional shadow impacts on the southern neighbour’s property.

 

In relation to visual amenity, the lift overrun is setback from the front , located within the middle of the development and does not protrude a significant amount above the proposed height of the main roof of the development. This means that the non-complying section of the development will not be immediately noticeable from the public or private domain and therefore not significantly impact on the visual amenity.

 

In relation to view loss, an assessment of view loss is contained within a later section of this report, and assesses that the level of view loss associated with the non-complying overall height as well as the increase in the height of the main roof. In brief the proposed development will result in acceptable levels of view loss from the front balcony of No. 8 Seaside Parade and will satisfy the objectives for view sharing.

 

The applicant has submitted supplementary details showing a photomontage of the approved and proposed development overlaid onto a photo of the view from the front balcony of No. 8 Seaside Parade (provided by the applicant). In brief, these show that the horizon view of the ocean above the proposed development will be maintained – see discussion of view sharing further below.

Proposed development

Approved development

 

The assessment can be summarised as follows:

 

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

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

·        The proposal continues to be well-articulated and the non-compliance will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity or solar access enjoyed by neighbouring property to the south at No. 9 Seaside Parade;

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

·        The proposal exceeds the minimum standards for several amenity-based controls including landscaping, site coverage and deep soil areas; and

·        The distribution of additional floor area above that originally approved will be contained within subfloor floor areas

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposed overall building height will be satisfactory. The variation will enable a greater level of amenity within the development that will not have any significant or unreasonable impact on streetscape and will continue to achieve the relevant objectives of both the standard and the zone. 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, that is the lift overrun, has been located to ensure acceptable impacts on surrounding properties having regard to view sharing, solar access and visual amenity. The breach in the height does not result in a building that will be unreasonable with the size and scale of buildings anticipated by the built form contrls.

 

The applicant’s written request and accompanying documentation is considered to have successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·             To protect the amenity of residents.

·             To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

4.1.3  Clause 4.4 Floor Space area of the RLEP 2012

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor area standard contained in Clause 4.4 (2A) (c) states that the maximum FSR of a site over 600 square metres in area (the subject site is 670.3 square metres) is 0.6:1. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation summarized in the table and illustrated in Figure containing excerpts from the submitted section plan below:

 


 

Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

Development Standard

0.6:1

Approved

0.62:1 (3.3% variation)

Proposal

0.677:1

Excess above RLEP Standard

12.8% (51.82sqm)

 

Ground level identified by green line. Areas of additional floor area are below natural ground level.

 

Request to vary development standard

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the maximum floor area standard contained in clause 4.4 (2A) of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case, Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4(1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Assessment comments:

It is considered that the justifications provided in the applicant’s written request have sufficient planning merit, as indicated below:

 

·      The proposed development does not result in any perceived external bulk and scale to the site or any unreasonable adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties. The circumstances of the lower ground floor are such that it has no physical implications for other land in terms of overshadowing, overlooking, or visual impact. It is unable to be seen from any public place or neighbouring property.

 

·      The floor space within the lower ground floor is not inconsistent with the objectives of the standard or the zone, both in relation to bulk, scale and to the desired future character. The floor space is contained at the lower ground floor and ground floor level and does not add to or alter the existing bulk, scale and character of the approved development. The additional 36sqm of floor area above the approved is minor in the context of the approved building. There will be no adverse natural environmental consequences will flow from the proposal subject o appropriate conditions.

 

·      The circumstances of the case are so specific to underground areas which are not dissimilar to development within properties along the foreshore that variation of the standard in this instance will not create any precedent effect.

 

·      Strict compliance with the standard would be of limited practical effect, given the perceived floor space will be negligible between the approved and proposed development. Variation of the floor space ratio standard in the circumstances would not be inconsistent with the objectives of the standard , objectives of the Act

 

·      It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary based on the following reasons:

 

The applicant’s written request is considered to have successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

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

•     To protect the amenity of residents.

•     To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. The proposal provides for an appropriate low-density housing development, both in the context of this site and as contemplated within the R2 zone.

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites. The built form will maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area. The scheme maintains a highly articulated development of appropriate scale that remains sympathetic to the foreshore area and allows for an appropriate economic use of the subject site.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Amending Development Application to the approved development (DA/822/2013) by increase the floor area at lower ground and ground floor levels, increase overall height of the development from RL35.90 to RL33.07, new cabana at lower ground floor level replacing an existing rock ledge, increase the size of the terrace area at ground and second floor, new balcony on the southern side elevation at first floor level, levels, changes to openings on all elevations and internal reconfiguration.

 

5      Submissions

 

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

 

Addresses of submissions:

 

·      5 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      9 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      8 Seaside Parade, South Coogee (owners and architect & town planner on behalf of owners)

 

Issue

 

Proposed first floor southern side balcony will result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts

Comment: The first floor southern side balcony is conditioned to be deleted from the application

 

Issue

 

The proposed Roof Terrace Extension to the southern side of 7 Seaside Parade also breaches the side set back requirements of 1500mm.

Comment: The proposed roof terrace is not sought to be extended closer to the southern side boundary from that originally approved under DA/822/2013.

 

Issue: Proposed ground floor terrace extension (including cantilever) has been previously refused by Council as has our proposed extension in a similar manner.

Comment: The proposed extension of the ground floor terrace is conditioned to be deleted

 

Issue: The proposed cabana roof extends beyond the foreshore building line and the proposed structure at No. 9 Seaside parade was required to be deleted from our development.

Comment: The proposed cabana roof has been conditioned to be reduced to behind the foreshore building line and it will not be dissimilar to the height of the existing land form along this side of the site.

 

Issue: The proposed kitchen amendment at the front of the house is forward of the building line. I will withdraw this objection should council also allow us to build forward of the front building line. In discussions with council we were told that this is not possible.

Comment: The level discernible from neighbouring properties and the kitchen is the entry level which is above the proposed extension of the ground level kitchen. In other words it is not viewable from the neighbouring properties or from the public domain.

 

Issue: The proposed roof breaks through the height limit line and has failed to supply a shadow diagram for the affect it will have on the development at No. 9 Seaside Parade.

Comment: The proposed development exceeds the maximum overall height standard by 40mm occurring at the lift overrun. The main roof is also sought to be extended however its overall height complies with the maximum overall height limit under the RLEP 2012. The application also includes shadow diagrams in plan and in elevation form showing the additional shadow impact on the northern elevation of the approved development at No. 9 Seaside Parade. The additional shadow impacts are considered acceptable having regard to the proposed amendments to the development and existing site conditions –see key issues section.

 

Issue: The failures and omissions by the architect to accurately reflect the impacts on the neighbouring properties are disturbing.

Comment: The notification plans were amended early on and clearly identify the proposed amendments to the approved development.

 

Issue: The proposed development will further reduce easterly coastal views

Comment: Acknowledged, see view sharing assessment in the key issues section of this report.

 

Issue: It is not evident that this increase in height is warranted and not necessary for this proposal.

Comment: The proposed increase in height seeks to improve the internal amenity within the development which has floor to ceiling heights at the entry level, first floor level and the second floor level below the 2.7m minimum envisaged by the RDCP 2013. It is noted that the overall height of the development is only exceeded at the lift overrun and the main roof element of the development will be under the overall height standard in the RLEP 2012. The impacts associated with the proposed amending DA are discussed further in the key issues section of this report.

 

Issue: The plans submitted with the application impinge on copyright as they reference the original architects name to the application seeking to amend the original DA.

Comment: An amended set of plans were received by Council omitting reference to the original architect including notification plans that clearly show the proposed amendments.

 

6      Key Issues

 

6.1     Clause 6.2 Earthworks (Section 4.6 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013)

The RELP 2012 and RDCP 2013 identify controls and objectives for development involving excavation, seeking to minimise change to natural ground, avoid adverse impacts to adjoining dwellings, enable usable private open spaces and avoid storm water implications.

 

The proposed amending DA seeks to carry out further excavation below natural ground level exceeding the controls that limit the depth of excavation to 1m maximum and within 900mm of the boundaries of the site under the RDCP 2013. The proposed depth and proximity of excavation to the boundaries formed a substantial aspect of the approved development. In this respect, appropriate conditions were included in that determination to ensure the structural adequacy of the neighbouring land and structures within are appropriately supported.

 

It is noted that the level of excavation that is occurring is not inordinate given the steep topography of the site and the natural of developments along the coast. Further, the proposed increase in depth of excavation will not alter the land form as viewed within the foreshore or from neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed excavation is considered acceptable and appropriate conditions are included to ensure the objectives under the RLEP and the RDCP are being satisfied.

 

6.2     Clause 6.6 Foreshore building line and Clause 6.7 Foreshore scenic protection area

Clause 6.6 of RLEP identifies development that may be allowed beyond the foreshore building line and Clause 6.7 and Part B10 of the RDCP 2013 require Council to be satisfied that the development within the foreshore is located and designed ot 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 that it contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

The main elements of this application which have the potential impact on the foreshore building line and the scenic quality of the foreshore area include:

 

·      Terrace (Ground level): Proposed extension of the ground level terrace by 1.5m so that it cantilevers 1.5m over the lower ground floor level below essentially seeks to amend condition 2a of the determination made under DA/822/2013 which required the cantilevered ground floor terrace to be reduced in length by 3200mm to be set in line with the end of the ground floor level.

·      Cabana (Lower ground level): Proposed cabana within the lower ground floor level which originally encroached over the foreshore building line but has however since been amended by reducing its depth so that it is in line with the foreshore building line

 

Terrace (Ground level)

 

The proposed extension to the ground level terrace 1500mm further to the rear so that it cantilevers over the lower ground level below is not considered supportable for the following reasons:

 

A review of the original assessment of this ground level terrace made the following points in support of the reduced length of the terrace:

 

The cantilevered component of the terrace is considered unacceptable and should be deleted for the following reasons:

 

o    The proposed terrace seeks to provide a cantilevered viewing platform on the southern side of the site that will unnecessarily project out beyond the rear extent of bulk established to adjoining developments;

o    The level of the terrace has direct implications for 9 Seaside Parade in respect of bulk, view loss to the approved lower level, shadow and overlooking to the approved rear private open space and pool;

o    The applicant’s justification is based on the premise of continuation of a rock outcrop on the northern side of the site providing an established median rear alignment. The terrace does not sit on the rock outcrop and the argument is not supported. 

o    The proposed terrace locates a bulky structure immediately up to the foreshore building line that will introduce precedent for similar development to continue this theme, in order to recapture views and avoid shadow;

o    A concrete outbuilding sits in this location at present, however sits at a level three (3) metres below the proposed cantilevered terrace;

o    Deletion of the terrace poses negligible impact upon the owner in respect of internal amenity. Uninterrupted views will be available from numerous vantage points, across the site. The scheme is inclusive of generous terraces, decks and landscaped open spaces to serve outdoor recreation needs;

o    The terrace appears to provide the sole function of a viewing platform that will obtain greater, uninterrupted angle of view around existing and approved developments on the same alignment.

 

The cantilevered rear terrace is considered to have a number of undesirable and detrimental environmental impacts upon the foreshore, neighbouring sites the existing built form. The terrace is recommended for deletion via suitable conditions of consent.

 

The above-mentioned points made in the assessment of the approved development (requiring condition 2d) remain relevant to the proposed extension of the ground level terrace (by 1.5m) so that it cantilevers over the level below. As such, the proposed increase in length and cantilevering of the ground level terrace whilst smaller than that originally sought under the previous application will continue have unacceptable impacts on views from neighbouring properties, adverse privacy impacts and will impinge on the predominant rear building alignments along the coast. This part of the application will also have an inordinate scale within the rear of the site that will be visually prominent.

 

Having regard to the above, the proposed terrace extension will detract from the scenic qualities of the foreshore scenic protection area and a condition is included requiring this part of the application to be deleted from the development.

 

Cabana (Lower Ground level)

The proposal seeks to replace an existing rock shelf with a cabana structure at the lower ground level. The cabana has a maximum height of 2.8m above the finished lower ground floor and will sit below the existing natural rock element it seeks to replace. The applicant was advised that the proposed cabana also encroaches over the foreshore building line by between 3.4m and 4m.

 

Having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under Clause 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP 2012 and Part B10 of the RDCP 2013, the proposed encroachment of the cabana over the foreshore building line is not supportable and communicated to the application. Amended plans have since been submitted reducing the depth of the cabana so that it is now behind the foreshore building line. In respect to removal and replacement of the natural rock outcrop which is considered to be a contributory element to the scenic qualities of the foreshore, although this part of the application is a negative aspect it is nonetheless supportable for the following reasons:

 

·          The rock outcrop although a natural element is sited behind a storage and retaining wall structure merely serving the purpose of structural support for the storage structure (shown in photo below) and was therefore never an element that was visually prominent or visible from the foreshore;

 

Photo showing pre-existing structures on site in front of the existing rock outcrop - storage element (roof removed), retaining wall approximately 3.5m in front of the base of the rock outcrop.

 

Plan excerpt showing the reduced depth of the cabana, depth of existing structures on site and existing rock outcrop.

 

·          The proposed cabana as amended reducing its depth behind the foreshore building line will sit below natural ground level and will not dominate the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

·          A consultative structural engineer’s letter states that the rock outcrops structural stability would be undermined by the approved level of excavation behind and in front.

 

Overall, given the current site conditions inclusive of existing structures and the structural instability of the rock outcrop and the cabanas reduced depth and open design it is considered that the proposed development as amended will satisfy the relevant requirements and objectives under Clauses 6.6 and 6.7 of the RLEP 2012 and Part B10 of the RDCP 2013 relating to the protection of the foreshore building line and foreshore scenic protection area.

 

6.3     Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013)

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

 

6.3.1  External wall height – Section 3.2 of the RDCP 2013

The amending development seeks to increase the overall wall height by 170mm across the main roof form and will have an external wall height that varies between 7.8m at the front of the western elevation to 9.47m at the southern elevation. The proposed development exceeds the 8m maximum wall height control that applies to sloping sites and the applicant has sought to demonstrate compliance with the various objectives of the external wall height section of the RDCP 2013 which read as follows:

 

·      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.

 

Having regard to point one above, relating to the scale of development and streetscape character, as indicated in the preceding section of this report regarding the overall height of the development, the proposed development will have a height that continues to achieve a suitable scale relative to adjoining and likely development along Seaside Parade and will continue to contribute to its character.

 

Having regard to point two above, relating to the potential impacts on neighbouring properties, the applicant has provided suitably material demonstrating that the proposed increase in height will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties having regard to overshadowing, view loss, privacy or visual amenity. These elements are discussed further in this report.

 

Having regard to point three above, relating to the form and massing of the development respecting the topography of the site, it is considered that the form and massing of the development is suitable achieved by using a mix of materials, varying side setbacks and modulations particularly along the side elevations where the development exceeds the maximum wall height by greatest margins. The massing of walls across the development are well articulated achieved by using a mix in materials, openings and varying side setbacks that serve to both break up the expanses of wall across the elevations creating visual interest when viewed from neighbouring properties; These features ensure the proposed development exhibits visual interest rather than unarticulated mass of walls.

 

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

 

6.3.2  Solar access and overshadowing Section 5.1 of the RDCP 2013

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

 

In relation to the level of solar access to the neighbouring property at No. 9 Seaside Parade, the applicant has submitted shadow diagrams that demonstrate that there will be only a very minor difference in overshadowing caused by this amending development application compared with the approved development under DA/822/2013. The additional impacts are not considered significant in the context of the minor overshadowing increase and the sites configured on an east-west axis where properties to the south of a development are most vulnerable to overshadowing. In addition, the significant slope of the site renders strict compliance with the DCP control very difficult to achieve.

 

Overall, it is considered that solar access objectives are satisfied in so far the high degree of overshadowing is largely unavoidable and inevitable in the context of the site, such that any reasonable development outcome in relation to the scale of development in the area and t setback, height and side setbacks of the development and the likely future development in the vicinity would incur similar impacts to their southern neighbours property

 


 

Visual and acoustic privacy

 

6.3.3  Visual privacy – Section 5.3 of the RDCP 2013

The main elements of the application that will affect the provision of reasonable privacy to the neighbouring properties, not already addressed in the preceding section of this report, include:

 

·      Ground level replace void area alongside pool with increased pool coping

·      First floor front balcony deleted and new first floor balcony added to southern side elevation.

·      Second floor rear terrace increased in area

 

An assessment of these aspects of the proposed development is carried out having regard to the following visual privacy objectives under the RDCP which seek:

 

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

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

 

Ground level replace void area alongside pool with increased pool coping

This modification seeks a 1m increase in width of the pool coping area located along the southern side of the pool from the 600mm width approved under DA/822/2013 to a total width of 1600mm. This modification has the potential to result in unreasonable privacy impacts on the neighbouring property to the south at No. 9 Seaside Parade. The reasoning is that this area of the site is elevated above No. 9’s rear yard and the increased width of the pool coping area makes this area more usable, and there is an inability to provide privacy screening along the southern side of the site without resulting in inordinate view loss from No. 9 Seaside Parade.

 

As such, the applicant has agreed to a condition being included requiring the coping be reduced to a maximum width of 600mm along the southern side of the pool and the landscaping increased by 1000mm. Only clear glazing may only be installed as a barrier along the southern side of the pool coping area with gate access to the landscaping area permitted only for maintenance purposes. Details to be supplied prior to a CC being issued for the amended development.

 

First floor front balcony deleted and new first floor balcony added to southern side elevation.

The proposed location of the first floor balcony along the side of the building does not satisfy the RDCP 2013 controls for placement of balconies.  The concern with the placement of the balcony on the side elevation is that it will be in close proximity to the habitable rooms of the neighbouring dwelling at No. 9 Seaside Parade and has the potential to result in noise and sleep disturbance. A condition is included requiring this balcony to be deleted from the development.

 

It is noted that the proposal also seeks to remove landscaping over a podium previously approved in this area (under DA/822/2013). There is no objection to the removal of landscaping in this area, as it is along a side elevation that is not immediately viewable from street level and therefore not necessary.

 

Having regard to the above, a condition be included requiring the deletion of the first floor level bedroom 2 side balcony.

 

Second floor plan: Increase in terrace area

The applicant has provided two sections (excerpts shown below) demonstrating that the increase in width of the second floor terrace will not result in any obvious sight lines into the neighbouring dwellings windows opposite. The privacy screen along the northern side boundary (approved under DA/822/2013) and included in this application, will restrict a direct view into the habitable room windows of the dwelling opposite at No. 5 Seaside Parade.

 

 

Therefore the proposed increase in area of the second floor rear terrace will continue to satisfy the visual privacy objectives under the RDCP 2013.

 

6.3.4  Acoustic Privacy – Section 5.4 of the RDCP 2013

The proposed increase in width of the second level terrace now aligns with the lift where there is a concern that a dual access lift doors that is to bedroom 4 and more importantly the terrace area may mean that there is a potential that this terrace may be allow for direct access to living areas below which creates the potential for large groups of people to use this terrace for entertaining purposes and therefore the potential for adverse acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. Additionally, it is not considered that there is a reasonable development expectation for an entertaining terrace at this level in so far as there are several entertaining areas at lower ground levels that are more readily accessible to open space and in similar locations to terraces on neighbouring properties.

 

Whilst the applicant indicates that the lift will only operate to allow for single direct access to the bedroom, it is considered reasonable to include a condition that prohibits direct access from the lift to the second floor rear terrace area.

 


 

6.3.5  View sharing – Section 5.6 of the RDCP 2013

Loss of ocean view was raised by the neighbour at No. 8 Seaside Parade opposite the subject site.

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss which resulting from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

1.  Quality of Views:

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. 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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The view from the first floor level of No. 8 Seaside Parade consists of ocean view above the existing dwelling. This is a high quality view due both to the proximity and to the fact that it is a view that is uninterrupted in terms of its horizontal width over the top of other dwellings on either side of the subject site.

 

Ocean view from first floor level balcony at No. 8 Seaside Parade over subject site and dwelling.

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 


 

Planner’s Assessment:

The view is obtained across the front boundary which is considered worthy of preservation subject to the assessment against the planning principle having due regard to the extent of impact and the reasonableness of the development.

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

The applicant has provided an overlaid photomontage of the approved development and another showing the impacts from the amended development. The additional height whilst resulting in less views of this horizon will nonetheless result in only a minor impact retaining the majority of this limited horizon view of the ocean.

 

View loss from existing development

 

 

View loss from proposed development

 

The overall additional view loss is considered to be minor given that majority of this horizontal view is being retained across the top of the proposed development.

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbors. 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.

 

Planner’s Assessment:

Although the application does not comply with the floor space ratio and building height standards it is noted that the majority of the non-compliance associated with both elements are limited to elements that do not directly result in substantial bulk, scale or massing of the development in question. In relation to the significant degree to which the proposal exceeds the floor space ratio standard, this additional area is below natural ground level and therefore not a direct translation of bulk or scale within the development. In relation to height, the only component that exceeds the overall height standard is the lift overrun which exceeds the RLEP limit by only 4cm and is located over a small section of the roof of the development. In essence, these non-compliances will either have no significant benefit of views being retained or result in any significant view loss from the affected neighbour’s property.

 

It is acknowledged that the proposed development further exceeds the 8m maximum external wall height limit under the RDCP 2013. However this occurs over the side elevations of the site where the land falls sharply down to the coast. In this respect, it is noted that the development is only 7.8m above street level which is both below the 8m maximum wall height limit for the site under the RDCP 2013.

 

The proposed development is also only 125mm higher than the approved development and 120mm higher than the existing building on site.

 

Notwithstanding, compliance with the overall height standard for the main roof form, the fundamental question is whether the height of the existing building should be insisted upon given the value and quality of the view lost and retained. One must also have regard to the extent and distance to the view and the visibility or prominence of the view and from where it is obtained (its context). Having regard to these matters, it is considered that the ocean and expansive horizon view is of significant value and interest and experienced from the primary internal and external living spaces at the front of the affected property, it is also in close proximity and across the eastern side of Seaside Parade where existing and approved developments are being permitted to similar heights at which the development is sought. The views from this first floor balcony would only be marginally affected by the proposed increase in height. The proposal is compliant with the maximum height control for the main roof form and is a reasonable design response to improving the amenity within the development which is more consistent with the planning objectives for the site, having particular regard to providing reasonable floor to ceiling heights, under the RDCP 2013. Given the above, it is considered that the resultant view loss is acceptable in the circumstances.

 

6.3.6  Side fencing and level changes – Section 7 of the RDCP 2013

Fencing is proposed to north and south shared boundaries. As indicated in the previous assessment. The amount of excavation and level changes involved with the proposal, in conjunction with the approved development at 9 Seaside Parade, makes for a complex situation of level changes and boundary fencing outcomes. The following issues occur with boundary fencing as proposed:

 

Southern boundary fencing:

The continuing requirement for the deletion of the rear cantilevered terrace adjacent the southern boundary may necessitate amendment to fencing arrangements to accommodate privacy in the interest of both the applicant and neighbour – as indicated in the assessment of the current approval – DA/822/2013. Therefore a condition is included that no consent has been granted for the proposed southern side boundary fence.

 

Northern boundary fencing:

The rear yard ground level adjacent to the northern side neighbours property is increasing by 400mm (From RL15.40 up to RL15.80) which would be approximately 700mm higher than the rear yard level at No. 5 Seaside Parade (RL15.11). This means that a standard 1.8m high fence would have a height of approximately 2.5m above the rear yard of No. 5 Seaside Parade. Although the applicant has liaised with the owner of No. 5 Seaside Parade and submitted a sketch plan showing an agreed fence form along the shared side boundary, it is not considered that this fence form can form part can be approved as part of this application given that the fence structure along this part of the site did not form part of the application as originally submitted and more importantly the agreed to fence form has not been notified to surrounding properties which may be impacted by the agreed to fence form between No. 5 and 7 Seaside Parade.

 

6.3.7  Other elements of the proposed development

The other proposed amendments to the approved development include the following:

 

Pool undercroft level RL14.50 (Lowered by 70mm from RL15.20 to RL14.50)

·      Remove Lift between Pool undercroft and Lower Ground Floor level above

·      Remove access path to deleted lift

·      Reconfigure layout replacing WC/Shower with store area in undercroft pool level

·      Relocate stair access from middle of rear yard to pool undercroft area to southern side boundary

·      Pool undercroft area lowered by 700mm from RL15.20 to RL14.50.

·      Pool floor level lowered by 200mm from RL15.20 to RL15.00

 

Assessment: No objection to these changes

 

Lower Ground floor level (Lowered by 100mm from RL17.60 down to RL17.50)

·      Increase excavation at front to accommodate additional floor area for a reconfigured media room, laundry and an external bathroom added at the rear of the approved lower ground floor level adjacent to the patio area.

 

Assessment: No objection to these changes

 

Ground floor

·      Kitchen area extended and reconfigured ground floor level including relocated guest WC from southern side to northern side and addition of internal stairs along the northern side of ground level

·      Reconfiguration of first floor level.

 

Assessment: the reconfiguration sought within level 1 relates to changes in room sizes and location of stairs rather than any change in room uses that would have any additional impact on the neighbouring properties amenity. Therefore there are no objections to the proposed reconfiguration at the first floor level.

 

Second floor level (increase by 170mm to RL30.07 from approved level RL29.90)

·      Front balcony deleted

 

Assessment: No objection to the deletion of this balcony as there are several other open space areas available for use.

 

·      Reconfiguration of robe and bedroom

 

Assessment: No objection to this change

 

·      Altered stair location

 

Assessment: No objection to this change as privacy screens along northern elevation are maintained.

 

Roof level (increased by 170mm to RL33.07 from approved by condition 2 g. at RL32.90)

·      Skylight deleted

 

Assessment: No objection

 

·      Relocation of solar panels

 

Subject to a similar condition imposed on the original except that the photo voltaic cells are limited to a maximum overall height of 33.07.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Part B10 and C1 of the Randwick DCP 2013 and is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions being included. Approval of the development is recommended as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, views, site planning and privacy (as conditioned).

 

The applicant has provided reasonable planning arguments that the proposed increase in height and additional floor area will result in a built form and the distribution of floor area across the site, whilst exceeding the numerical standards will nevertheless achieve a better planning outcome than that which would be achieved by the existing approved development which had very shallow floor to ceiling heights. The scheme is reasonable in the context of the planning objectives applicable to the site and the likely future character of the low density residential area along the coastal foreshore.

       

The variations from the maximum building height and floor space ratio standard under the RLEP 2012 have been adequately justified having regard to the objectives of the zone and the standards. The requirements of the RDCP have also been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report including that the proposals existing approved development which had very shallow floor to ceiling heights would not provide the amenity envisaged by the RDCP 2013. Further the proposal will continue to respond well to both the streetscape and neighbouring properties providing articulation within the building as well as adequate separation whereby impacts of overshadowing are unavoidable and impacts such as view loss are considered acceptable subject to good planning principles. The visual and environmental impacts upon neighbouring properties will not be significantly altered as the majority of amendments are either considered to be negligible, acceptable or have been adequately conditioned out of the recommended approval of the development.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 924/2014 for amending DA/822/2013 by altering the internal configuration of the dwelling, increase the floor area at lower ground and ground floor levels, new cabana at lower ground floor level, increase the size of the terrace area at ground and second floor levels, new balcony on the southern elevation at first floor level, changes to openings on all elevations, and increase the overall height of the dwelling to RL33.07, at No.7 Seaside Parade, 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, as indicated in red on the approved plans. The amendments shall be made to the satisfaction of Council’s Manager of Development Assessment, prior to the issue of a construction certificate:

 

a)  The cantilevered ground floor terrace at the rear of the dwelling shall be reduced in length by 1500mm so that it aligns with the lower ground floor level wall below. Details shall be submitted to Councils Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to issue of a construction certificate (or amended Construction Certificate) is issued for the development, as indicated in red on the approved plans;

 

b)  The first floor southern side balcony shall be deleted from the development.

 

c)  The cabana roof and walls must be located behind the foreshore building line. All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate shall show compliance with this condition.

 

d)  There are to be no structures locate above the finished ground level within the lower ground floor level that encroaches over the foreshore building line.

 

e)  The pool coping along the southern side of the pool shall be reduced to a maximum width of 600mm and landscaping along the southern side of the pool shall be increased in width by 1000mm to limit the degree to which the coping can be used for extended periods of time and to limit the degree of overlooking into the neighbours rear yard area. The fencing along the northern side boundary is limited to a clear glass BCA compliant balustrade located on the northern side of the landscaped area.

 

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

 

g)  The fence along the northern side boundary may only be constructed up to the eastern end of the lower ground level patio level. The northern side boundary fencing extending from the end of the lower ground level patio to the rear boundary shall be the subject of a separate development application.

 

3.       This development consent DA/924/2014 modifies the development consent DA/822/2013 only in so far as the modifications highlighted on the plans referenced in condition 1 of this consent and conditions attached to this consent.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 7 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D65/15

 

Subject:                  352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/674/2014/A)

Folder No:               DA/674/2014/A

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of approved development by alteration to lift entry and car parking arrangement, new laundry, stairs and storeroom in basement, relocation of bin store, alteration to internal layout, changes to eastern windows, living areas extended 1.2m to north, changes to form of southern wall, relocation of skylight and removal of roof terrace

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr Z Volf

Owner:                    Mr G B Newhouse; Mr Z Volf; Ms V Ivanetc; Mr M I Moses

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview49174.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original consent was determined at a Council meeting.

Proposal

 

The section 96 modification of the approved development includes the following:

 

Basement:

 

Reconfigured basement:

·          Rearrange entry lobby and lift access

·          Rearrange car parking,

·          Additional storage area and stair access for unit 1

·          Relocated bin store area

·          New storeroom and laundry in basement for ground level unit (1)

 

Ground level unit:

·          Remove 500mm stepped out south-western section of ground level unit aligning the rear elevation into one built form across the whole of the building setback 5m from the rear boundary

 

All units:

 

Additional floor area at each level:

·          The living areas extended northward by 1.2m closer to Clovelly Road reducing the size of balconies

·          Increased width of each unit (including basement) extended within the western middle part of the development achieved by reducing the open lobby area and changing the direction of the lift resulting in a longer and closer wall adjacent to the western side boundary

·          Reconfigured internal layout

·          Additional east facing bedroom windows in stepped in section

·          Relocate glass block east facing windows.

 

Roof

·          Relocate skylight from over relocated hallway in unit 3

·          Remove roof terrace and reduce height of building by 400mm (as conditioned under original approval)

 

Site

 

The subject site has an area of 424.5sqm with irregular tapered frontage to Clovelly Road and a skewed rear boundary to properties elevated above the subject site. The existing building is not heritage listed, it is however one of the early buildings along this section of Clovelly Road, and identified in the Statement of Heritage Impact as being of historical and aesthetic significance at a local level. The subject site is elevated above street level rising in level towards the rear with a total variance of 2.19m above street level. The site also falls down in level from east to west with a variance of 1.35m with the western site being the low end of the site. The subject site is neighboured to the east by a part-two part-three storey flat building and to the west by a part-one part-two storey building containing a shop premises fronting Clovelly Road with residential above and a single storey to the rear. To the rear, several multi storey flat buildings are elevated above the subject site by around 2.3m (not including fencing).

 

 

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.

 

Section 96 Assessment

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

 

Substantially the Same Development

Council may only approve an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 if “it 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) under this section”.

 

The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original approved development and the works will result in an application that is substantially the same as that for which consent was originally granted. However, the modifications are not supported as the proposal will result in poorer planning outcome than that which was originally approved resulting in excessive massing along the western elevation in closer proximity to the neighbouring property, detract from the streetscape character and reduces the functionality of each units private open space. Consequently, the section 96 application is recommended for refusal. 

               

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP)

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal modifications to the development remain classified as a residential flat building and permissible in the zone. The following clauses of RLEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

R3: Medium Density Residential

The relevant objective of the zone R3: Medium Density Residential zone pertinent to this application is as follows:

 

·      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 section 96 modifications namely the additional floor space to the living room towards the front of the development represents additional bulk that will detract from the desired future character of the area. It is noted that the original development’s ground and upper balconies were further forward of the 3m minimum front setback control under the RDCP 2013. The original assessment report went on to state that the proposed front setback was supportable on the basis that the front deck and balcony elements exhibited a fluid architectural form with relatively open structures between the front building line and front boundary creating a sense of depth and lightness in its expression. The proposed extension to the living rooms at the front will reduce the separation between the front building line and the front of the balconies and ground level deck thereby reducing its openness and increasing its visual bulk.

 

Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio (FSR)

The proposed modifications seek to make the following amendments to floor area across the development (also shown in excerpt plan further below):

 

·      Additional floor area at the front living room

·      Additional floor area in the middle of the development brought about by the reconfigured lift and lobby area along the western elevation

·      Deletion of floor area at the rear south western end the ground level apartment

 

Figure 1: Green circled area identifies the reduction of floor area at ground level, red circled areas identify the additional floor area being sought in the middle of the development along the western elevation and extension to living room at the front of the site.

 

The overall result of the above modifications is an increase in the originally approved floor space ratio of 0.9:1 to 1.1:1 representing 46.95sqm of additional floor area above the limit under the RLEP 2012. As this is a Section 96 application the applicant is not required to submit a written request pursuant to Clause 4.6 Exception to a development standard of the RLEP to seek justifying a contravention of the FSR standard. Notwithstanding the applicant has in their Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) sought to address the relevant objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone. The objectives of the R3 zone have been considered in the previous section of this report. The relevant objectives of the floor space ratio clause are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The greatest impact of the proposed additional floor area relates to the additions sought to the living room extending 1.2m closer to the front (northern boundary) and the proposed additions to the side of the development in the middle of the western side boundary.

 

These proposed additional floor area to the development does not satisfy the FSR objectives for the following reasons:

 

Northern additional floor area

·      Pursuant to objective point (a) and (b) the proposed additional floor area at the front will reduce the level of articulation relied upon, that is the separation between the front building line and the front of the balconies and ground level planter at the front to satisfy the objectives of the front boundary setback. The additional floor area at the front will increase the apparent size and scale at the front and will detract from the desired future character of the area. The protrusion outwards of the living area reduces the unencumbered area of the balcony creating essentially one small area at the eastern end and a larger area at the western end thus reducing its amenity.

 

Western side additional floor area

·      Pursuant to objective point (b) and (d) the proposed additional floor area in the middle of the development at the western side although compliant with the side setback controls under the RDCP 2013, will reduce the level of articulation along the western elevation. The openness of the originally approved lobby area was relied upon to provide visual relief and break down the massing of the non-complying external wall height of the lift in combination with the semi open stair well which are both site 1200mm from the western side boundary and did not meet the minimum 2m minimum side setback control under the RDCP 2013. The additional floor area in middle of the development in combination with the extension of the non-complying external walls associated with the reconfigured lift and lobby area in combination with the approved stairwell will reduce openness and articulation along the western elevation. The additional floor area in combination with the reconfigured lift and lobby area and approved stairwell will increase the length of unarticulated walls and massing within close proximity to the western side neighbours property thereby increasing the adverse impact on visual amenity of the western side neighbour.

 

Figure 2: The red box identifies the additional lobby wall (11.08m high) extension to the approved the lift wall - green box (1200mm from the western side boundary). The blue box (including dashed blue line over the start of the proposed lobby wall) identifies new enclosing walls associated with the additional floor area being sought replacing the approved open lobby area (shown in blue box in figure 3 below).

 

Figure 3: Shows the approved development

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Part C2 Medium Density Residential Development

The proposed modifications are assessed against the relevant provisions of the DCP. Particular reference is made to key parts of Part C2 Medium Density Residential development. The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

This part applies to the proposed development which is seeking to add additional floor area, alter the external wall height extending along a non-complying side setback. The application has been assessed against, and is inconsistent with, the objectives of the building height and side setback sections of the DCP. The development will result in avoidable and unnecessary impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the streetscape character. The issues elaborated upon below have been raised as key issues during the assessment of the application.

 

External wall height and side setbacks

The proposed section 96 modifications affect the external wall height and side setbacks of the approved development along the western side elevation of the approved development and the external wall height along the front northern elevation and.

 

Northern elevation

The proposed modifications to the front of the development remain compliant with the external wall height limits under Section 4.4 of Part C2 in the RDCP 2013. The key elements of the proposed modifications to the front northern elevation relate to the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone and the floor space ratio under the RLEP.

 

Western elevation

The key elements of the section 96 application relating to external wall heights relate to the proposed modifications along the western side elevation of the development. The proposed modifications seeking additional floor area and a reconfigured lobby and lift area affect the external wall heights and side setbacks of the development along the western side boundary.

 

1)  Enclosing walls of the lobby area: The modifications that seek to enclose the approved lobby area as additional floor space has a wall height of between 10.14m and 10.28m and complies with the 10.5m external wall eighth limit under the RDCP 2013. Figure 2 above shows the proposed enclosure of the lobby areas bounded in blue and figure 3 shows the approved open lobby areas. It is noted that the proposed enclosure of this element is not supported on the basis that it does not satisfy the R3 zone objectives and FSR objectives under the RLEP 2012 in that in combination with the non-complying external wall height of the lift and lobby area (discussed below), it results in adverse impacts on the visual amenity of the western neighbours property.

 

2)  Reconfigured lift and lobby area: The proposed modifications seeking to reconfigure and extend the lift lobby area will have a maximum external wall height of between 10.94m and 11.08m measured from ground level (existing) along the western side boundary (RL36.60 - RL25.52/RL25.66)). This part of the section 96 application does not meet the 10.5m external wall height limit under Section 4.4 of Part C2 Medium Density Residential in the RDCP 2013. Figure 2 above shows the proposed wall extension (bounded in red) to the approved lift wall (bounded in green).

 

The key issue in assessing the variation to the external wall height control, that is the test as to the acceptability of the breach, is ultimately the extent to which the proposed modifications suitably meet the objectives of the building height control in Section 4.4 of Part C2 in the RDCP 2013.  The objectives of the building height control provide the framework for assessment of the proposal especially as to whether it achieves the key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve in relation to this control. The proposal is assessed against the objectives of the building height controls as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

Pursuant to objective point three, it is considered that the proposed external wall heights along the western elevation exhibits additional bulk and scale that will exacerbate or increase adverse impacts on the western side neighbour’s property having regard to their visual amenity. 

 

The applicant references the assessment officer’s report in their application seeking to justify the proposed modifications to the external wall height control and side setbacks. In this respect, the originally approved development acknowledged the external wall heights exceeded the maximum wall height control under the RDCP 2013. The original report required and was approved subject to a condition requiring a reduction in the height of the development by 400mm thus reducing the degree to which the development exceeded the maximum wall height control along the western elevation – that is the lift wall. The original report also resolved at the time that despite the continuing non-compliance with the external wall height control associated with the lift wall, the development was worthy of approval on the basis that this lift wall was at a localised low end of the site, the length of the lift wall was relatively minor when compared with the rest of the western elevation and of particular relevance to the purposes of this application, the massing of the western elevation was well articulated achieved by using a mix in materials, openings and varying side setbacks that served to both break up the expanses of wall across the western elevation creating visual interest and minimising the visual massing of these walls when viewed from neighbouring properties. It was also justified on the basis that the proposal was compliant in floor space which was distributed in a manner that achieved an optimal site strategy.

 

It is not considered that the justifications provided in the original report extend to the justifying the proposed modifications. The proposed modifications being sought in this application will contravene the reasons for approval and most notably contravene the objective of the building height control which seeks to control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity. In particular the proposed section 96 modifications referenced above are not considered able to be supported for the following reasons:

 

·     The original DA proposal was approved subject to the breach of the external wall height control and side setback occurring only along a small portion of the built form that it was well-articulated with an open lobby whose internal external wall was sited further away from the western side boundary that minimised the massing effects of the lift wall and the visual impact on the adjoining neighbour’s property. However, the proposed section 96 applications will largely negate the ancillary benefit of this open lobby element by extending a non-complying external wall further which is only 1200mm from the western side boundary (falling short of the required 2m).

 

·     The increased length of the western wall will project greater bulk and scale and therefore greater visual impact when viewed from the neighbouring property

 

·     The increased length of the western wall will project greater bulk and scale and therefore result in greater overshadowing than that which would have occurred with the approved development

 

Accordingly, the proposed changes are not considered acceptable having regard to the S79C assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

 

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 modifications to the floor area, external walls and side will make the proposed building along the northern front elevation and western side elevation more dominant and visually intrusive when viewed from street level and neighbouring properties. The proposed modifications to windows and roof inclusive of relocated skylight, and new skylights will not have any adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties however, given the modifications to the internal layout predominately drive these they are therefore not supportable.

 

The proposed increase in floor area that breaches the FSR standard under the RLEP and the proposed increased length of the western wall that breaches the maximum external wall height control under the RDCP 2013 combined with a 1200mm side setback does not meet the 2m minimum side setback control under the RDCP 2013 will not result in a good planning outcome having regard to the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone and floor space ratio under the RLEP 2012 and nor will they achieve a good planning outcome having regard to the objectives for external wall height and side setbacks under the RDCP 2013.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 674/2014 for alteration to lift entry and car parking arrangement, new laundry, stairs and storeroom in basement, relocation of bin store, alteration to internal layout, changes to eastern windows, living areas extended 1.2m to north, changes to form of southern wall, relocation of skylight and removal of roof terrace, at No. 352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly, for the following reassons:

 

1.     The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives for the R3 Medium Density Residential zone stipulated under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012;

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives or numerical standard for Floor space ratio as set out under Clause 4.4 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

3.     The proposed development proposes a non-compliant external wall height that eventuates in unreasonable bulk, scale, overshadowing and visual impact on the western neighbouring properties and fails to meet the objectives for Building Height set out in Section 4.4 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C2 – Medium Density Residential;

 

4.     The proposed development proposes a non-compliant side setback from the western side boundary eventuates in unreasonable visual amenity impacts , and fails to meet the objectives for setbacks out in Section 3.4 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C2 – Medium Density Residential;

 

5.     The proposed development does not demonstrate a skilful design. The height, form and massing of the development will detrimentally affect the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the streetscape. The proposal is not considered to satisfy Section 79C(1)(b) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D66/15

 

Subject:                  123-125 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee (DA/330/2015)

Folder No:               DA/330/2015

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Use of part of the ground floor area as a cafe with small bar liquor licence, new accessible toilet, provision of remedial massage services/health consulting rooms at first floor level, extension of the trading hours for the existing wellness centre and new footpath dining area

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Clearview Wellness Centre

Owner:                    Mr P Manavis

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed use involves a remedial massage and in accordance with Council’s Resolution on 27 June 2006, the application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves:

·        The change of use of part of the first floor residential premises to health consulting rooms providing remedial massage, acupuncture and beauty therapy;

·        Use of part of the ground floor area as a cafe with small bar liquor licence,

·        Consturcution of a new accessible toilet;

·        New footpath dining area; and

·        Extension of trading hours for the existing wellness centre to:

·        Monday to Sunday 6.30am to 9pm.

 

It is considered that the proposed use is legitimate and that the premises are not intended to be used for the purposes of providing sexual services. The proprietor has provided accreditation as part of the application from the Australasian College of Natural Therapies (Diploma of Remedial Massage).

 

The proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Site

The subject site is on the southern side of Coogee Bay Road, Coogee and consists of a commercial tenancy at ground floor level with shop top housing above. Business premises are located to the north of the subject site, with multi-storey located to the south and east and Coogee Public School located to the west. The area is a mixture of uses with commercial, residential and special uses in the immediate vicinity.

Figure 1:  The subject site as viewed from Coogee Bay Road.

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

 

Nature of the Use:

Remedial massage will be carried out in the three consulting rooms at first floor level by the proprietor. The proprietor has provided accreditation as part of the application from the Australasian College of Natural Therapies (Diploma of Remedial Massage).

 

The consulting rooms at first floor level will be utilised for various uses including the following; Remedial Massage, Acupuncture, naturopath, beauty therapy, physiotherapy and nutrition. The consulting rooms are fitted with solid doors and sinks (as required for acupuncture under relevant NSW health requirements). As stated previously the premise is currently and will be continued to be occupied by Clearview Wellness Centre, It is considered that the information provided allows for justification that the use of the premise is legitimate. However, notwithstanding the above, appropriate conditions are recommended to ensure that no services of a sexual nature are provided within the premises.

 

Also a condition of consent has been recommended requiring relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications of all staff members to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning prior to the commencement of the use. Council will then keep a record of the employees and their relevant qualifications

 

To ensure the residential portion of the first floor level is used in conjunction with the business premises and not used as a separate occupancy, a condition has been recommended in the development consent requiring that the residential portion of the development is ancillary to the business use on site.

 

In addition to the above the proposal includes the internal fit (via the provision of tables/benches and chairs) and construction of a kitchen area to the rear of the premise all at ground floor level, this will allow for the service of food in the proposed café.

 

The use of part of the ground floor level as a café will not result in any adverse impacts on the surrounding properties or the streetscape. The application will be seeking a small bar liquor license; it is considered that to ensure the use of the premise is for a café only and does not result in the use of the area as a bar, conditions requiring the service of alcohol to be ancillary to food service have been recommended in the development consent. In addition to the above a condition defining the use of the ground floor area as a café only and not a bar has been recommended.

 

Appropriate conditions have been recommended in the development consent by Council’s Environmental Health Team, with relation to the fit out of the café and construction of the kitchen to ensure relevant health requirements are complied with.

 

Parking

The proposal seeks approval to change the use of the residential first floor into 3 health consulting rooms. Under the parking rates specified in Part B7 of the RDCP 2013 the establishment of 3 consulting rooms would require the minimum provision of 6 spaces. As the first floor level is approved as an existing 4 bedroom unit which requires 1.5 spaces (resulting in parking credit) as per the RDCP 2013, the additional parking demand generated by the proposed change of use will be 4.5 spaces.

 

No off-street parking has been proposed on the site and so the proposal will be solely relying on the availability of on-street parking to meet any additional demand.

 

Despite the non-compliance with the numerical controls in the RDCP 2013, a transport survey of approximately 164 patrons of the existing premises has been submitted. The survey indicates that only a small minority of patrons arrive by motor-vehicle with a significant majority walking to the centre. A number also arrive by bicycle or public transport. A bus stop is located immediately in front of the site on Byron Street (route 313) and there is a new bike rack installed on Coogee Bay Road frontage which is proposed to be relocated to Byron Street.

 

Based on the information obtained through the transport survey it is acknowledged that there is a highly localised catchment associated with the patrons of the wellness centre which encourages walking and will likely reduce the parking demand significantly below the DCP rates.

 

It is considered that as a result of both the sites close proximity to public transport as well as the localised catchment of clients/patrons the potential transport impacts associated with the operation of the proposed health consulting rooms will be minor and imperceptible.

 

It should also be noted that limited on-street parking is also available in Byron Street & Coogee Bay Rd as well as on-street parking becoming available opposite the site in front of the school outside of the peak pick-up and drop-off times. The subject property is in a similar situation with most other commercial properties in Coogee Bay Road with a majority not providing any off-street parking.

 

The proposed change of use of level one of the subject site from a residential premise to health consulting rooms will not adversely affect the surrounding properties or streetscape, the site is in close proximity to several high-use bus routes as well as on-street parking being provided in the immediate vicinity. The proposal is considered acceptable with regards to available parking and meets the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

Footpath Dining

The proposed outdoor seating will be located directly in front of the premises. The proposed footpath dining will be keeping within the characteristics of the existing commercial streetscape and will not detract from the safety and amenity of the area and its surrounds.

 

The proposal is for 4 tables seating 11 patrons for the business, it is considered that the proposed number of outdoor seating allows sufficient area for footpath dining and trading to be carried out, whilst providing adequate footpath clearance. All measurements have been checked on site and Council’s Development Engineer have recommended approval for the removal of a palm tree and relocation of the bike rack to allow for adequate footpath space to meet the relevant controls in the RDCP 2013.

 

The proposal is considered to be appropriate for the location and will not have any adverse impacts on the amenity of the surrounding properties, it is considered to meet the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick DCP 2013.

 

Hours of Operation

The Development Application also seeks to increase trading hours for the existing business premise and proposes these same hours for the proposed outdoor dining. As per the previous approval (DA/93/2012), approval was granted for the business to operate within the following hours:

 

·      Monday – Sunday: 7:00am – 8:00pm

 

The RDCP 2013 states that in a Neighbourhood Centre (B1) operating hours for outdoor dining is generally 9:30pm Sunday and 10:00pm Monday to Saturdays. The proposed trading hours for the footpath dining and associated business premise are:

 

·      Monday to Sunday 6.30am to 9pm.

 

It is considered that the proposed opening hours are not appropriate for the location and will adversely affect the amenity of the residential premises within close proximity. The business and footpath dining operating from 6.30am is considered inappropriate for the location, this has also been confirmed by Council’s Environmental Health Team as part of their referral. In order to improve the amenity for the surrounding properties and mitigate potential impacts operating hours have been conditioned to the following:

 

·      Monday – Sunday: 7:00am – 9:00pm

 

It is considered that the conditioned operating hours for the footpath dining and associated business premises will be consistent with the surrounding businesses and will not have any adverse effects on the surrounding residential properties.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed use of part of the ground floor area as a cafe with small bar liquor licence, new accessible toilet, provision of remedial massage services, Extension of existing trading hours and new footpath dining area, will comply with the relevant assessment criteria outlined in the RLEP 2012 and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013. The proposed use is considered to be consistent with surrounding small business uses and subject to conditions to restrict the type of massage service provided, will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

 

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/330/2015 for use of part of the ground floor area as a cafe with small bar liquor licence, new accessible toilet, provision of remedial massage services/health consulting rooms at first floor level, extension of the trading hours for the existing wellness centre and new footpath dining area at No. 123-125 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee subject to the following non-standard conditions and the  standard conditions in the development application compliance report attached to this report

 

 

Non standard conditions

 

29.     The residential dwelling at first floor level must be used ancillary to the subject business premises and by the operators of the business.

 

31.     The internal café area is to be limited to thirty (30) persons. The two chairs and one table closest to the internal wall opening between the ‘existing yoga reception’ area and ‘café’ area shall be deleted.

 

Regulatory Requirements

44.     The primary use of the ground floor area of the premises must be as a café, with the purpose of providing food. The premises must not to be used as a bar, or principally, for the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol.

 

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

 

45.     If alcohol is to be served on the premise, the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol must not take place at the premises except with or ancillary to the service of food to be consumed on the premises and the relevant liquor licence under the Liquor Act 2007 has been obtained beforehand.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Report - Compliance Report 123-125 Coogee Bay Road, COOGEE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D67/15

 

Subject:                  18 McGowen Avenue, Malabar (DA/26/2015)

Folder No:               DA/26/2015

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Authorise the use of a detached outbuilding and basement area for storage purposes

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mr J Spiteri

Owner:                    Mr D J Wilmot

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview28920.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Stavrinos, Andrews, and D’Souza.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is to authorise the use of a detached outbuilding and basement area for storage purposes.

 

DSC00273

Figure 1: Unauthorised Outbuilding

 

DSC00281

Figure 2: Unauthorised excavation resulting in extended basement garage and storage

 

 

 

Work at the subject site has been completed, as seen in the Figure 3 & 4 below, it can be estimated that the work was completed some time between 2004 and 2006. Work was brought to council’s attention when an adjoining property owner attempted to use the rear outbuilding structure as a precedent to exceed council’s outbuilding controls.

 

 

Figure 3: Subject site 2004                                              Figure 4: Subject site 2006

 

As a result, Council’s Regulatory and Compliance Team have made comment and appropriate action will be taken subject to determination of the development application. It should be noted that Council cannot grant retrospective approval for the works already completed.

 

Site

 

The subject site is on the south-western side of McGowen Avenue and is a regular shape having a street frontage of 9.145m, a depth of 45.685m and an area of 417.8m². The site contains at present a part two, part three storey dwelling house, with a detached outbuilding at the rear of the site. The surrounding streetscape is occupied by single and two storey dwelling houses. 

 

Figure 5. 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. There were no submissions received as a result of the notification process.

 

Key Issues

 

Unauthorised Works

Development consent was granted for the construction of a part two, part three storey dwelling house under DA/258/1999. Council was notified on 6/8/2014 that works had been completed not in accordance with the development consent. The proposal was referred to Council’s Building Regulatory and Compliance Team as the works had already been completed prior to approval being granted. As a result Council’s Building Regulatory and Compliance Team required a development application be submitted to Council for the use of the unauthorised works.

 

As retrospective approval cannot be given for any building works completed, an appropriate condition has been recommended in the development consent granting approval for the use of the subject development but not for any building works already completed prior to the consent being granted. As detailed in the report below approval is recommended for use of all the unauthorised works except for the rear outbuilding structure and associated rear driveway.

 

Landscaping and Permeable Spaces

The subject site has an area of 417.8m², as per the RDCP 2013 sites with an area between 301m² and 450m² are required to provide a minimum 25% of the total site area as deep soil permeable surface, the subject site has 29m² (approximately 7%). This is a non-compliance of 75.25m² which is considered a significant departure from the numerical controls in the RDCP 2013. The construction of the unauthorised outbuilding and associated driveway occupies 90.82m² of rear private open space and significantly contributes to the non-compliance with the controls for landscaping and permeable surfaces under the RDCP 2013.

 

The subject site does not meet the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013, in that; the site does not ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed to ensure visual balance between building structures and open space (as seen in Figure 6 and 7 below); and the available permeable surface on site severely limits the sites ability to assist with stormwater infiltration and overland flow. It is considered that the significant non-compliance with the required permeable surfaces results in adverse impacts on the amenity of the occupants and the wider neighbourhood.

Figure 6: Available deep soil permeable surface highlighted in green.

DSC00278

Figure 7: Only Available deep soil permeable surface on site.

 

It is considered that as a result of the construction of the unauthorised outbuilding and associated driveway, the subject site does not meet the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013 and results in an undesirable precedent in the immediate area. As such approval cannot be granted for the use of the outbuilding and associated rear driveway and an appropriate condition has been recommended in the development consent.

 

Earthworks

Earthworks in the form of excavation and fill were completed without the consent of Council. Excavation has occurred to a depth of approximately 1.91m to create the basement storage and garage area underneath the existing dwelling house. It is acknowledged that the excavation exceeds the maximum 1m depth outlined in the RDCP 2013. Notwithstanding the above; it is considered that the unauthorised excavation work which has resulted in the creation of a basement storage and garage area underneath the existing dwelling house does not result in unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing or privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

The rear of the site was characterised by a rock outcrop which sloped away significantly to the rear adjoining neighbour at No. 53 Austral Street (See figure 8 below).

Figure 8: Subject site in 2002 (blue highlight shows rear of site)

In order to build in this area, fill to a maximum depth of 1.3m has occurred along the rear boundary. This backfilling in combination with the constructed outbuilding has resulted in a rear external wall height of 4m and is considered to result in significant adverse visual bulk when viewed from the rear adjoining neighbours. It is considered that the backfilling at the rear of the site in conjunction with the construction of the rear outbuilding does not meet the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013, in that it results in unreasonable structural and visual impacts on the adjoining properties. As such approval cannot be granted for the use of the outbuilding structure at the rear of the site and an appropriate condition has been recommended in the development consent.

 

Outbuildings

The unauthorised outbuilding constructed to the rear of the site has a maximum building height of 4m, measured on the western elevation. It is considered that the outbuilding does not meet the relevant controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will results in significant adverse building and visual bulk when viewed from the adjoining properties. Figure 9 and 10 below show the constructed outbuilding viewed from the rear adjoining properties.

DSC_0389

Figure 9: Outbuilding viewed from No. 53 Austral Street

 

DSC_027611

Figure 10: Outbuilding viewed from 49 Austral Street

 

The maximum building height of 4m measured on the western boundary is a direct result of the aforementioned 1.3m backfilling which has occurred along the rear boundary. The unauthorised outbuilding results in a development which does not comply with the maximum building and external wall heights of 3.6m and 2.4 (respectively) outlined in the RDCP 2013. This significant departure from the numerical controls in the RDCP 2013 results in a structure which is visually dominating when viewed from the adjoining properties and does not maintain reasonable levels of visual amenity for the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The unauthorised outbuilding adversely affects the amenity of the adjoining properties, results in unnecessary visual bulk and sets an undesirable precedent in the immediate area. As such approval cannot be granted for the use of the outbuilding and an appropriate condition has been recommended in the development consent.

 

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 complies with the objectives and control requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls.

 

Subject to the recommended conditions, the development scheme will not generate unreasonable adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.

 

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

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/26/2015 to Authorise the use of the basement area under the existing dwelling for storage purposes, at No. 18 McGowen Ave, Malabar,  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.     This consent does not include approval for any internal/external building works carried out prior to the issuing of this consent.

b.     The existing rear outbuilding and associated driveway does not comply with the relevant controls and objectives for Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces as set out in Clause 2.4 and Outbuildings as set out in Clause 7.4 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan. The proposed outbuilding exceeds the maximum height and wall height controls resulting in excessive visual bulk which adversely affects the amenity of the adjoining properties; and the outbuilding and associated driveway is located within the required permeable surface area on site resulting in a significant non-compliance with available deep soil area, adversely affecting the visual balance on site between building structures and open space and the ability to assist with stormwater infiltration. As a result, approval is not granted for the use of the outbuilding and associated driveway.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 18 McGowen Avenue, Malabar

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_BLUE SPOT_RGB 

Development Application Report No. D68/15

 

 

Subject:                  36 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay (DA/376/2015)

Folder No:               DA/376/2015

Author:                    Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dual occupancy development

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Archispectrum

Owner:                    Mr G Tsoukalas & Mrs S Tsoukalas

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview6032.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

Proposal

 

The proposal includes the demolition of the existing structures on the site and the construction of a new attached dual occupancy. The dwellings include:

 

·          Ground floor – single garage, laundry, WC, kitchen, dining and living rooms, and a rear deck.

·          First floor – master bedroom with ensuite and balcony, two bedrooms with a shared balcony facing the street, and a bathroom.

 

Site

 

The site is a regular shape with a site area of 565.3m2. The front boundary to Mirrabooka Crescent is 16.76m and the side boundaries are 33m long. The site slopes from the street to the rear boundary with a fall of around 3m over the length of the site.

 

There is currently a single storey dwelling house with a garage excavated beneath the dwelling. Surrounding properties contain a mix of single and two storey dwellings of varying age and size.

 

There are eight trees on the site being a mix of native and exotic species. Most, but not all, are proposed for removal as part of the application.

 

36 Mirrabooka Crescent

Figure 1: Subject site

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      32 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay

 

Issues

Comment

Rear setback non-compliance

The proposed roof over the rear decks has been deleted from the plans to ensure compliance with the setback control.

 

Privacy impacts from balconies

The first floor balconies have privacy screens noted on the amended plans.

The floor level of the ground floor living areas has been lowered so that the living areas and decks are now closer to ground level.  Privacy screens have been added to the sides of the decks and screen planting is to be provided along the side boundaries.

 

Privacy impacts from living room windows

The floor level of the living areas has been lowered.

 

Void areas

The proposal complies with the floor space controls for the site and the void areas are considered to be appropriate as they are located over living areas.

 

 

Key Issues

 

4.2   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. Any proposed variations from the DCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions to achieve the objectives of the DCP Controls.

 

The plans originally submitted with the application did not comply with a number of council’s controls. Amended plans were requested of the applicant requiring compliance with the following controls:

 

·          Floor space

·          8m rear setback

·          Location of front entrance

·          Location/size/design of habitable room windows

·          Privacy screens to decks and balconies

·          Height of rear decks above ground

·          Provision of screen planting

 

The plans were amended as follows:

 

·          Floor space complies

·          The roof over the decks was removed to comply with the rear setback control

·          The entrance was relocated to the front façade

·          First floor windows comply with the privacy controls by either having a sill height greater than 1.6m or being translucent glass

·          All decks and balconies have privacy screens

·          The floor level of the rear part of the ground floor (living, dining, kitchen) of each dwelling has been lowered by providing internal steps. As a result the rear decks are also lowered.

·          Screen planting is proposed along the side boundaries and the shared boundary between the proposal dwellings.

 

These amendments satisfactorily address the issues raised with the original plans and are worthy of support. The proposal complies with all the other relevant DCP controls subject to recommended conditions for details of the front fence design and materials to be submitted with the construction certificate.

 

A condition is also recommended for a design change for the roof area to the courtyards adjacent to the laundries to both dwellings.  It is recommended that the roof be reduced to a 1m wide awning to provide weather protection to the laundry door opening, to provide daylight to the recessed courtyard spaces and to reduce the overall site coverage of the proposal.

 

Council’s Development Engineer and Landscape Planner reviewed the proposal. No objection has been raised to the proposal subject to suitable conditions of consent.

 

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 complies with the relevant LEP and DCP controls, It will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding natural or built environment and is worthy of support.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 376/2015  for Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dual occupancy development, at No. 36 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay, 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:

 

3.       Design Change Courtyard Roof

The proposed roof to the courtyard areas adjacent to the laundries to both dwellings is to be reduced to a 1m wide awning to provide weather protection to the laundry door opening and allow natural night to the courtyard spaces.

 

17.     Front Fence Design

The design details including materials, colours and finishes of the front boundary fence are to be submitted with the construction certificate demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Section 7.2 to Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan to ensure that the fence design and height provides adequate visibility for vehicles entering and leaving the site and for pedestrians in the public footpath area. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 36 Mirrabooka Crescent, LITTLE BAY

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D69/15

 

Subject:                  221 Barker Street, Randwick
(DA/296/2015)

Folder No:               DA/296/2015

Author:                    Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling to accommodate a new hardstand car space and new front boundary fence (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr B Phillips

Owner:                    Mr B Phillips and Mrs A R Phillips

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

 

 

1.  Proposal

 

This application proposes to reconfigure the existing front yard of an existing semi-detached dwelling to accommodate new hardstand car space with dimensions of 3m x 5m and new front boundary fence. The proposed works will result in partial excavation of the front yard by up to 500mm, the removal of a large portion of an elevated front verandah and the installation of new planter boxes on the side boundaries.

 

2.  Site

 

The subject site legally described as Lot 3 DP 706145 is rectangular in shape and located on the northern side of Barker Street, Randwick, approximately 17m north opposite the Kara Street intersection. The site has a land size of 254.6m2 with street frontage of 6.115m and depth of 41.99m. The land sits above the street level and slopes upwards from south to north and west to east with the lowest level being at the south western corner adjacent to the front yard of 219 Barker Street. Presently, it is occupied by an existing one to two storey Federation era semi-detached dwelling with first floor addition setback further behind the ridge of the roof adjoining to a heritage item building Grand Edwardian Mansion, 82-84 Perouse Road at the rear boundary and immediately adjoining to one storey semi-detached dwelling, 223 Barker Street on the eastern side (refer to Figure 1). The streetscape is predominantly characterised by low to high density residential development within R3 Medium Density Residential area that adjoins to R2 Low Density Residential area on southern side of Barker Street.

 

The subject dwelling, as noted by Council’s Heritage Planner, forms part of a row of largely intact fabric of semi-detached Federation style bungalows, which are considered for its important contribution to the historical significance of ‘The Spot’ Heritage Conservation Area.   

 

Figure 1: Subject semi-detached dwelling, 221 Barker Street, Randwick indicated in red.

 

3.  Relevant Site History

 

DA/649/2011

Approval granted on 17 November 2011 for alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new first floor addition.

 

4.  Submissions

 

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

 

5.  Key Issues

 

5.1 Design Provisions  for Semis

To accommodate the new hardstand car space, the application details a substantial removal of the front verandah and cutting into the wall under the front window (refer to Figure 2). As the existing front setback of the building is only 2.99m as indicated on the survey plan, a further indentation of 2.01m into the built form is proposed to create sufficient length for the car space. The elevated front verandah with an approximate height of 1m above the natural ground level will be retained around the proposed car space area, which results large recess to the front wall below the front window. When viewed from the street, the proposed changes to the verandah will be highly visible, as the front of the dwelling currently sits approximately 0.6m above the street level.

 

The objectives Council’s DCP 2013 Section C1: Low Density Residential Clause 4.1 and 4.2 for General Building Design and Additional Designs Provisions for Semi-Detached Dwellings state that articulation of building facades must complement or enhance the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character and that any alteration to an individual semi-detached dwelling must recognise it as being half of a pair of symmetrical, similar or complementary building. The façade of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling on the eastern side has remained unaltered and the proposed design scheme will impact on the symmetrical presentation of the pair of semis. The proposed development also does not complement the existing streetscape character and may create an unwanted precedent for other dwellings in the immediate area.

  

 

Figure 2: Estimated extent of works indicated in red.


5.2. Heritage

Council’s Heritage Planner report (refer to Part 5 of DA Compliance Report) indicates that the subject dwelling house is largely intact, featuring a hipped roof with finials, a timber and roughcast gable, casement windows with coloured glass panels and decorative sill, as well as a verandah which retains its timber posts and fretted brackets. While not listed, the dwelling contributes to the Conservation Area by way of scale and form, and intact historic fabric. Other surrounding buildings include the adjoining semi at 223 Barker Street, which similarly maintains an intact scale, form, and fabric. The rear of the subject property backs up to heritage listed 82-84 Perouse Road which comprises a grand Edwardian Mansion.” Clause 5.10(1) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 for Heritage Conservation includes an objective to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, setting and views. The proposed development will not conserve the heritage significance of the subject semi-detached dwelling’s scale and form, and intact historic fabric, as it involves extensive cutting into the front verandah.

 

Clause 4.16, sub-clauses 4.16.3 and 4.16.4 of Section B2 of the DCP for The Spot Heritage Conservation Area also suggest that the character values of contributory buildings should be retained, and unless rear lane is available, narrower lots are not allowed for on-site car parking. New development including alterations and additions to existing buildings should generally respect these character values in order to be compatible with their surroundings. The proposed front hardstand car space is inconsistent with the guidelines for change of The Spot Heritage Conservation Area given that the site constraints prevent the ability to accommodate a single width driveway and car parking space at the rear/side.   

 

Clause 2.8 of Section B2 of the DCP for Verandahs and Balconies identifies that the front verandah is regarded as an important design feature, creating an interface between the building and the street as well as a sense of depth to the front façade. Section B2: Heritage of the DCP also contains a number of controls to ensure that original verandahs are retained, and states that the existing fabric of a building, including verandahs, must not be altered to allow for the provision of a car parking structure/ hand stand space. The objective of Section C1: Low Density Residential Clause 6 for Car Parking and Access also stipulates that car parking facility should be designed to integrate with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element and does not visually dominate the property frontage and the streetscape.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner report states that “the subject dwelling’s existing front verandah is substantially intact with original timber posts and bracket fretwork retained. The proposal involves cutting into the middle of the verandah will result in a reduction in verandah floor area by approximately 4.5m². Given the partial removal of the front wall, the design scheme will also exacerbate the visual presentation of the casement window, in terms of it jutting out with no solid structure below. The DCP makes it clear that any changes to the external appearance of Heritage Items and contributory buildings should respect the original built form, architectural style and character. It further notes that street elevations should not be substantially changed and that new work must respect the proportion of significant existing fabric including verandahs. The changes proposed will have a detrimental impact on the heritage fabric of the dwelling house front façade, substantially reducing the size and layout of the verandah, affecting its period character as well as its overall contribution to the Heritage Conservation Area. Concerns are also raised that the proposed design scheme will impact on the symmetrical presentation of the pair of semis and may create a precedent for other dwellings in the immediate area.”

 

In view of the above, the proposal will adversely impact on the heritage significance of the conservation area.

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 alterations to an existing semi-detached dwelling in a heritage conservation area will result in poor design that detract from the symmetrical presentation of the pair of semis, will result in substantial alterations to the built fabric of the dwelling house affecting its period character, visual appearance and overall contribution to The Spot Heritage Conservation Area and may create a precedent for other dwellings in the immediate area. The proposal is therefore could not be supported at its current form and recommended for its refusal.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/704/2014/A for alterations to the front of the existing semi-detached dwelling to accommodate a new hardstand car space and new front boundary fence (Heritage Conservation Area) at No. 221 Barker Street, Randwick for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objective for R3 Medium Density Residential as set-out in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that:

 

(i)       The proposal fails to recognise the desired elements of the existing streetscape and built form.

 

2.       The proposal does not comply with provisions of Clause 5.10 – Heritage Conservation under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as it does not conserve the heritage significance of heritage conservation area, including associated fabric, settings and views.

 

3.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 Section B2: Heritage Clause 2.2 of the DCP (Design and Character) in that proposed development fails to promote high quality design and respect the original built form, architectural style and character of development in ‘The Spot’ Heritage Conservation Area.

 

4.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 Section B2: Heritage Clause 2.8 (Verandahs and Balconies) in that the proposed development will detract from or reduce the importance of original verandahs and balconies of building in ‘The Spot’ Heritage Conservation Area.

 

5.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 Section B2: Heritage Clause 2.9 (Garages, Carports, Carspaces and Driveways) in that the proposed development will alter the existing building fabric and dominate with the original character of building in ‘The Spot’ Heritage Conservation Area.

 

6.       The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.16 of section B2 of the DCP for The Spot Heritage Conservation Area for guidelines for change of car parking in that car space will be provided to narrow property with minimal front setbacks.

 

7.       The proposal does not comply with the objective of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 Section C1: Low Density Residential Clause 4.2 for Additional Design Provisions for Semi-Detached Dwellings in that articulation of building facades must complement or enhance the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character and that alteration to an individual semi-detached dwelling does not recognise it as being half of a pair of symmetrical, similar or complementary building.

 

8.       The proposal does not comply with the objectives of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 Section C1: Low Density Residential Clause 6 for Car Parking and Access in that the car parking facility does not integrate with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element and will visually dominate the property frontage and the streetscape.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 221 Barker Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D70/15

 

Subject:                  9-11 Baden Street, Coogee (DA/750/2013/B)

Folder No:               DA/750/2013/B

Author:                    Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 to modify the approved development by altering the internal layout of units on level 2 to create a 3 bedroom unit (unit 5) and 2 bedroom unit (unit 6), increase the size of the lift overrun, extension to the rear of unit 7 on level 3, increase the height of a blade wall on eastern elevation and changes to window openings on elevation

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Nectaria Tsilikounas

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview48686.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

A Section 96 modification has been received which seeks to modify the approved development by altering the internal layout of units on level 2 to create a 3 bedroom unit (unit 5) and 2 bedroom unit (unit 6), increase the size of the lift overrun, extension to the rear of unit 7 on level 3, increase the height of a blade wall on eastern elevation and changes to window openings on elevation.

 

The following extract from the Statement of Environmental Effects provides a summary of the proposed modifications:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The increase in the floor space ratio is the result of an increase in floor area of 32.74m2 occurring by way of:

 

·      A small increase in the size of a bedroom at level 2.

·      An extension to the rear of the uppermost level to accommodate 2 bedrooms, a bathroom and en-suite areas as part of the conversion of unit 7 to a single level unit.

 

As noted in the table, the increase in floor area will result in the total FSR being slightly less than that of the existing building on the site.

 

Site

The site is a rectangular shaped allotment having a frontage to Baden Street of 14.935m and a site area of 591.8m2.

 

There is an existing residential flat building on the site which contains 6 dwellings.

 

The site slopes down from the rear to Baden Street at a grade of about 4%.

 

The locality is occupied by a mixture of interwar building with more contemporary developments interspersed and including a ten storey residential flat building at the cul-de-sac end of Baden Street.

 

The properties fronting Baden Street enjoy expansive views over Dunningham Reserve and Coogee Bay.

 

Figure 1: Street view of subject site

 

Submissions

 

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

Unit 3/7 Baden Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The development as approved exceeded the planning controls and the proposed modifications further increase the non-compliant aspects of the development.

Whilst there is a further  numerical non-compliance in the proposed modifications, all numerical controls have a qualitative objective and a desired planning outcome. As detailed in the assessment contained in this report, despite the numerical increases in levels of non-compliance, the associated impacts achieve the objectives of the relevant controls on this occasion. The proposed modifications are within the ambit of the Section 96 (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 as they will result in a building substantially the same for which consent was granted.

 

The approved FSR exceeded Council’s controls and the proposed modifications will result in further non-compliance with the current controls.

The existing building on the site has of FSR of 1.07:1 The approved development included a FSR of 1:1, less than the bulk of the existing building on the site. The proposed modifications whilst increasing slightly the approved FSR to 1.06:1 will result in a building bulk less than that of the existing building and with acceptable impacts as addressed in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

The external wall height will extend at a non-compliant height of 11.41m which is well over the maximum allowable of 10.5m.

The proposed new section of wall is setback a minimum of 4.4m from the western boundary of the objector’s property providing for a good level of articulation of this section of wall in relation to the overall building envelope. The setback is also well in excess of the 2.5m setback required under the DCP which assists in achieving acceptable associated impacts as assessed in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

Side setback (East) The height of the proposed lift overrun exceeds Council’s height controls.

Notwithstanding the increase in height so as to meet with the manufacturer’s specification, the additional height is for a small section of relative width in relation to the eastern boundary and will have a relatively minor increased impact on sunlight access beyond that associated with the approved development. This component has a negligible impact on the objector’s property.

 

The original development was non-compliant and the proposed modifications exacerbate this level of non-compliance. Where does Council draw the line in terms of exceeding controls.

Notwithstanding the strict numerical non-compliances with Council’s controls associated with the proposed modifications, the development as modified will result in a building bulk,  scale and height with related impacts that nonetheless satisfy the objectives of the respective controls. This is addressed in detail in the Key Issues section of this report.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Substantially the Same Development:

Whilst the amendments are numerous, the proposed modifications collectively do not alter the nature or essence of the approved building and will result in a development substantially the same as that to which consent was granted.

 

Furthermore, whilst the proposal involves further departures from the maximum allowable FSR and building height controls of 0.9:1 and 12m respectively under the RLEP, consistent with L & E Court decisions in this regard, the application for modification may be determined without the need for clause 4.6 objections to the development standards.

 

As such, it is appropriate that the application be dealt with under Section 96 (2) of the E P & A Act, 1979.

 

Notification and Consideration of Submissions:

The notification of the proposal was carried out in accordance with Council’s DCP and consideration of submissions is addressed in this report.

 

Section 79C Assessment:

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

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The application constitutes development affected by SEPP 65. The application was considered by the Design Review Panel at its June, 2015 meeting. The following comments were received with officer’s comments where necessary:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is a Section 96 Application to extend the top floor of an approved apartment building. The Panel reviewed the original application in December 2013, and this is third time that the Panel has reviewed this proposal.

 

The proposal is for the demolition of an existing flat building and construction of 7 apartments over four storeys with basement parking for 10 cars. The Applicant had previously responded thoughtfully to the comments made by the Panel in June 2013 and this application is again a thorough one. 

 

This application enlarges the upper units, by making Unit 7 occupy the 4th storey with an extended core. Units 5 and 6 on the 3rd floor gain bedrooms. Retained comments are in italics.

 

The Panel members are familiar with the site and then locality.

 

1, 2 + 3.  Context, Scale and Built Form

 

As previously noted: 

 

“Baden Street is one of Coogee’s most prestigious addresses and has sweeping views to the ocean and Coogee Beach over Dunningham Reserve, as well as high amenity due to proximity to the beach, park, shops and public transport. The site is highly visible from the open public space of the reserve and should provide a good address to the street. 

 

The buildings in Baden Street are mixed in character and height.  The most easterly building is 8 storeys and of no particular architectural merit. The building to the east of the site is 3 storeys and displays some fine detail and character however the building to the west is an unfortunate 3 storey brick box.

 

The proposed new building is shown to sit within the footprint of the existing 3 storey building.  The additional height roughly matches the ridge height of the pitched roof to the east.” 

 

It is the Panel’s opinion that the minor increase in scale and built form of the S96 proposal are suitable in its context. 

 

Car spaces 9 and 10 could be rotated 90o to occupy the aisle – this would shrink the size of the basement and allow more deep soil planting.

 

Officer’s comment

The configuration in this regard is consistent with the original consent and not sufficiently related to the proposed amendments to provide a nexus to further modification requirements in this regard.

 

The Proposed Density

The Panel notes that the FSR of the proposed building would now be 1.06:1 is slightly lower than the existing building on the site, which has a larger footprint, and a FSR of 1.07:1. The Panel considers that the FSR exceedence is acceptable.

 

Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The following issues raised by the Panel have been satisfactorily addressed:

 

·          ceiling fans to all habitable rooms - clearly marked on the plans - the Panel does not support the use of air-conditioning and ceiling fans can markedly reduce the need for high energy cooling systems - done

 

·          open louvre windows to the stair reduce the need for artificial lighting and increase the amenity of the stairs

 

·          better window design to assist in cross ventilation - awning windows and fixed glass are both poor performing window selections.  Window operability should be improved and method of operation clearly shown on the elevations. - done

 

·          weather protection to windows so that they can remain open during rain in hot summer months. – partly done, adequate

 

It is further recommended that the high-light windows shown above the sliding doors to the balconies and terraces should be open-able, west and south west facing fixed glass be provided with appropriate sunshading and that consideration be given to providing a north-facing window to bedroom 1 in Units 4 and 6. These issues do not appear to have been adequately addressed in the DA.

 

Officer’s comment

An appropriate condition is included in the recommendation requiring submission and approval by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment prior to the issue of a construction certificate of a plan detailing appropriate treatment in this regard.

 

The Proposed Landscape

The Panel notes that the spaces behind the buildings with frontage to Baden Street are well treed, but that the proposal would not contribute to this character and is deficient deep soil available for tree planting.  The Panel recommends that the extent of the basement under the rear garden on the site be reduced by eliminating the car wash/visitor parking space in it and that a suitable substantial tree or trees be established in the common court area.

 

This appears to have been addressed – see additional change recommended above.

 

The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

The proposed building is well planned and would offer a high level of amenity to its occupants.

 

Small eaves overhangs have now been provided to the topmost storey.

 

The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

Addressed.

 

Social issues

In such a small apartment block, the diversity of apartments proposed is strongly supported.

 

The Aesthetics of the Proposal

It will be essential for the building to reach and maintain its potentially high standard. The top surface of the edge beams to balconies should be finished with impermeable materials and sloped to drain towards balcony floors and balcony drainage and other down-pipes should concealed.  These recommendations should be noted on the cross section drawing and elsewhere as required.

 

The building has been neatly resolved although it remains a little “chunky” with regard to roof and balcony edges.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Subject to the issues noted above being satisfactorily resolved with the reviewing officer, the Panel commends this proposal to the Council.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of the RLEP 2012 and the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone.

 

The following clauses of LEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed modifications:

 

4.3 Maximum Building Height       

The maximum building height under the RLEP is 12m and the approved development complied with this limit. The proposed modifications will result in a small section related to the lift overrun and a blade wall at roof level that will rise to a maximum of 12.56m in lieu of the approved maximum height of 11.91m. The increase in height for the lift overrun is as a requirement to meet the manufacturer’s standards and the blade wall at roof level is a design feature.

 

 

The objectives of the height standard are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed increases in height above the maximum 12m limit are not significant, relating to the lift overrun and a section of blade wall at roof level and an associated small section of the relevant eastern elevation in terms of additional impacts. As is demonstrated under solar access and overshadowing in this section of the report, the additional impacts associated with the non-compliant height are negligible when compared with the approved development (and in the context of shadows cast by the existing building on the site). Furthermore the proposed additional bulk will continue to result in a development of lesser bulk that that of the existing building to be demolished on the site.

 

The development as proposed to be modified will remain compatible with the desired future character of the locality, will not impact adversely in relation to any heritage item, HCA or contributory building near the site and include acceptable amenity impacts to adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk loss of privacy, overshadowing and views. This is further demonstrated in the assessment which follows in relation to maximum FSR, external wall height and solar access and overshadowing.

 

For these reasons the departure from the maximum allowable height standard s supported.

 

4.4 Maximum Floor Space Ratio

The objectives of the FSR standard are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The existing development on the site includes a floor space ratio of 1.07:1. The development as consented to included a FSR of 1:1 and the proposed modifications include a FSR of 1.06:1, that is, less than the existing building to be demolished on the site.

 

The existing building on the site is setback to side boundaries significantly less than the approved development. As such the apparent bulk of the approved development from adjoining properties will be substantially less than that associated with the existing building. In relation to the proposed modifications, the additional bulk is concentrated at the rear of the uppermost level of the approved building and includes additional setbacks at this level (3.4m to eastern boundary and 4.4m to western boundary) so as to adequately articulate the façades and reduce the apparent bulk to surrounding properties. The additions in this manner will not be readily visible to the streetscape.

 

Given the acceptable amenity impacts addressed in this section of the report, the development as proposed to be modified satisfies the objectives of the maximum FSR standard and is supported.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

External wall height

The objectives of the DCP are as follows:

 

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

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

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

                                                                                     

The DCP limits the external wall height to 10.5m where the maximum height limit under the RLEP is 12m. The external wall height associated with the proposed lift overrun and blade wall is addressed as satisfactory in the Maximum Building Height section of this report.

 

In relation to the proposed modifications, whilst the proposed external wall height to this uppermost level will not increase, the physical extent of the external wall height will protrude northward for the length of the proposed modifications (approx.. 6m – 7m. To offset the apparent bulk of the additions, the respective walls have been setback additionally from side boundaries to provide adequate articulation and acceptable amenity impacts as addressed in this section of the report. The enhanced living areas embodied in the proposed additions incorporate ceiling heights that will promote light and quality interior spaces and retain an interesting roof form to the overall building design.

 

As such the proposed modifications are consistent with the objectives of the control and are supported.

 

Amenity

Solar Access and overshadowing

The objectives of the DCP are as follows:

 

·      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.

 

Given the north south orientation of the site, the proposed modifications include a design which maximises solar access to living areas and private open spaces.

 

The bulk of the increased shadows relate to the extension at the rear of the uppermost level of unit 7. Despite the increased shadow, it is important to note that the revised overshadowing impacts are still for the most part within those impacts currently imposed by the existing building on the site. This is illustrated in the following images:

 

Figure 2: Shadow diagrams showing that shadows cast from the proposed development (inclusive as proposed to be modified) on the building to the west at 7 Baden Street cease to impact that building before 11.00am and thereafter.

 

Figure 3: Shadow diagrams showing that impacts asociated with proposed modifications fall largely within those shadows cast by the existing building to be demolished on the site and or fall upon walls or roofed areas. Those shadows do not impact the building at No. 15 Baden Street until after 12.00pm.

 

As can be seen from the above shadow diagrams the proposed modifications will continue to provide for a development which allows compliant levels of sunlight access to surrounding properties. Furthermore, the design as proposed to be modified will retain adequate ambient lighting and minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours in relation to the proposed development and those existing surrounding properties. As such the proposed modifications and resultant development are consistent with the objectives of this control and therefore supported in this regard.

 

Visual Privacy

The objectives of 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 proposed additions to the uppermost level include a rear balcony off 2 bedrooms. Given the use of these areas in association with bedrooms only, no adverse privacy impacts are envisaged by this inclusion.

 

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 modifications constitute a development substantially the same for which consent was originally granted and include associated impacts on surrounding properties which are sustainable.

 

For these reasons the proposed modifications are supported.

 

 

 Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/234/2014/A by altering the internal layout of units on level 2 to create a 3 bedroom unit (unit 5) and 2 bedroom unit (unit 6), increase the size of the lift overrun, extension to the rear of unit 7 on level 3, increase the height of a blade wall on eastern elevation and changes to window openings on elevation. Original consent: Demolition of existing residential flat building and construction of new 4 storey residential flat building containing 7 units, basement car parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works (Variation to floor space ratio control) in the following manner:

 

·     Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans:

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

JO4-12 A-02 Rev D

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-03 Rev D

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-04 Rev B

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-05 Rev B

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-06 Rev B

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-07 Rev B

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-08 Rev F

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-09 Rev F

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-10 Rev F

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

JO4-12 A-11 Rev B

Alec Pappas Architects Pty Ltd

March 2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

511928M_2

27 April, 2015

 

the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red by the following:

 

·     Amend Condition No. 2 to include:

 

2(c)    The following requirements shall be incorporated into the proposed ‘common court’ area at the rear of the site, which are designed to minimize the potential for overland flow from entering the common court area;

 

1)     The entry stairs to the ‘Common Court’ area shall be raised to a minimum of 150mm above the adjacent side pathway.

 

2)     The top of the retaining walls surrounding the common court shall be     a minimum of 150mm above the surrounding finished surface.

 

2(d)    The highlight windows shown above the sliding doors to the balconies and terraces must be openable, and west and south west facing fixed glass be provided with appropriate sun shading. A plan incorporating the recommended changes must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D71/15

 

Subject:                  8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington - DA/181/2015

Folder No:               DA/181/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 9 units, a basement car park for 10 vehicles, new front fence, associated site and landscaped works

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               Brewster Murray Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                    G & E Mihailou Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview50015.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

Proposal

 

Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 9 units, a basement car park for 12 vehicles, new front fence, associated site and landscaped works.

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as 8 and 10 Grosvenor Street and formally described as Lot 5 DP664291 and Lot 5 DP650616. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a combined frontage width 15.24 metres, a depth of 45.26 metres and a site area of 689.9sqm.

 

Neighbouring to the east is an existing three storey residential flat building, to the south is an existing four storey residential flat building and to the west is a pair of single storey semi-detached dwelling houses. The subject site is characterized by a fall of approximately 1 metre from the street frontage to the rear of the site with a minimal fall across the site frontage. The immediate locality consists of an area undergoing transition from a low to medium residential density and a combination of free standing houses, semi-detached dwellings and residential flat buildings. 

 

Further to the west is the Our Lady of the Rosary primary school and Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College secondary school. 

 

The subject site at 8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The eastern neighbour at no. 12 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

 

The western neighbouring dwellings at no. 4-6 Grosvenor Street

 

The rear of the subject site at no. 24 Addison Street, Kensington

 

The window openings of the adjoining residential flat building at no. 12 Grosvenor Street

 

Existing residential flat building at no. 28-30 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

 

Existing residential flat building at no. 24-26 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

 

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:

 

·      7/2 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

·      7 Grosvenor Street, Kensington 

·      1/12 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

·      3/12 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

·      5/12 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

·      7/12 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

·      13 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

·      15 Grosvenor Street, Kensington 

·      Our Lady of the Rosary School

 

Issue:

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the aims of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the development does not respect, enhance or compliment the dominant existing character of the street and does not conserve the environmental heritage of the immediate locality. 

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone as the development does not recognize the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form or, in precincts undergoing transition, that contribute to the desired future character of the area.

Comment: The proposal will be compliant with the aims of the RLEP2012 in that the size and scale of the development will generally remain compatible with a number of similarly sited and dimensioned residential flat buildings within Grosvenor Street. The built form is not considered to be excessive in visual bulk and scale and will generally conform with the building envelope requirements including setbacks, building height, landscaped open space and soft landscaping. In addition to this, the proposal will not contribute to any significant adverse impacts and will provide a reasonable level of amenity to the neighbouring dwellings with regards to visual bulk, privacy, solar access and views. Consequently, the development will not detrimentally impact the desired future character of the immediate locality. 

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the objectives of the Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation in that the development does not conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick.

Comment: The subject site is located in close proximity to a heritage item at no. 16 Grosvenor Street and a Heritage Conservation area of Sacred Heart. The proposal is acceptable in complying with the objectives of Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation as prescribed within the RLEP2012. The development is commiserate in bulk and scale to a number of adjoining dwellings within Grosvenor Street and does not dominate or detract from the appearance of the neighbouring heritage item and heritage conservation area. The contemporary form of the development will distinguish between the new and the old buildings within the streetscape and will be sympathetic to the heritage conservation area and heritage items within the immediate vicinity.

 

·      The proposal will result in a shortfall of 2 parking spaces and does not comply with the controls for vehicular parking rates within the RDCP2013.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans increasing the number of parking spaces from 10 spaces to 12 and will now comply with the council controls for vehicular parking rates within the RDCP2013.

 

·      The parking and traffic survey submitted as part of the application is inaccurate and does not reflect the parking during the periods between 8.30am – 9.30am and 2.30pm – 3.30pm given off street parking is used as a pick up and drop off zone.

Comment: In accordance with the RDCP2013, the requirements of a parking and traffic survey are only applicable should the proposal result in a departure to the vehicular parking rates of new development. The applicant has submitted amended plans with an increase in the number of off-street parking spaces from 10 to 12 and will comply with the council controls for vehicular parking rates within the RDCP2013. Subsequently, any justifications to the shortfall in the number of parking spaces are no longer applicable.

 

·      The proposal will compromise the visual privacy to the immediately adjoining neighbours.

Comment: The window openings along the eastern and western elevations comprise of either the installation of metal screening over the window openings or a sill height of more than 1.6 metres above the finished floor level with obscured glazing. The privacy measures will minimise any direct overlooking into the habitable room windows of the adjoining dwellings and provide a reasonable level of visual privacy to the neighbouring dwellings. Refer to key issues for further details.   

 

·      The proposal will result in view loss from an easterly aspect to neighbouring dwellings to the west.

Comment: The proposed development will not result in any significant view loss impacts. The eastern outlook of the objectors premises from the upper floor level is expected to comprise mostly of natural vegetation and the existing built form along Anzac Parade. The view is not considered to be of a significant scenic element or any recognized icons such as city skylines, landmark buildings or special natural features that would warrant consideration of potential view loss impacts. The easterly aspect from the objectors premises is considered to be a significant distance from any potential water views including oceans, bays and coastlines and any views of the city skylines and prominent landmark buildings are directly north of the objectors premises. Consequently, the proposal will not contribute to any significant view loss for the surrounding properties as far as is practicable and reasonable.

 

·      The proposal will impact the natural light and ventilation to the adjoining neigbours

Comment: The development is setback 2.5 metres from the side boundary which is compliant with Council’s controls for side setbacks and provides ample building separation to the adjacent buildings in providing adequate daylight and fresh air to the living areas/private open space and communal open space areas of the neighbouring dwellings.

 

·      The proposal will reduce the amount of direct solar access to the adjoining neighbours

Comment: The subject site is orientated in a north/south aspect and will maintain a reasonable level of solar access to the neighbouring dwellings to the east and west. To the east, additional overshadowing will fall on the west facing window openings of the adjoining residential flat building at the first and second floor levels between the afternoon periods of between 1pm - 4pm. To the west, shadowing is cast to the east facing ground floor window openings of the semi-detached dwelling during the morning periods of between 8am – 11am. The development is reasonable in complying with Council’s controls for solar access and overshadowing as prescribed within the RDCP2013 in that the living areas of the neighbouring dwellings and more than 50% of the landscaped areas at nos. 6 and 12 Grosvenor Street will receive the required three hours of direct sunlight between 8am – 4pm. 

 

·      The proposal will negatively impact the value of property.

Comment: The impact of new development and property values is not a matter of consideration under section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979.

·      The balconies are set at a similar finished floor level to the window openings to the adjoining neighbours and will result in visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

Comment: The first and second floor balconies located at the rear of the residential flat development are offset from any window openings of nos. 6 and 12 Grosvenor Street and the installation of privacy louvres will minimise any direct overlooking into the private open space of the adjacent dwellings. In addition to this, the northerly aspect from the rear balcony structures will not compromise the privacy levels of the northern neighbour given the balconies are directly adjacent a rear garage structure and the communal open space of the rear dwelling. The proposed balconies are significantly separated from the balconies of the rear neighbour by approximately 18 metres and are set an ample distance in reducing potential cross-viewing. 

 

With regards to the front balcony structures louvre screens are installed along the full eastern and western edges of the balcony and have been conditioned to ensure the angle of the louvres minimise any cross viewing into the habitable room windows of the adjoining dwellings. Further, the balconies are not expected to result in any unreasonable acoustic noise impacts to the adjacent dwellings that are reasonably expected within an R3: Medium Density Residential Zoning. In considering the above, the proposal is acceptable in complying with the objectives of the RDCP2013 in that the development will continue to provide a reasonable level of visual privacy to the neighbouring dwelling. Refer to Key Issues for further details. 

 

·      The development is setback 900mm from the western neighbour.

Comment: The development is setback 2.5 metres from the western boundary and will comply with Council’s controls for side setbacks as prescribed within Clause 3.4: Setbacks of the RDCP2013.

 

·      The proposal does not achieve the minimum requirements of building separation as required by the Residential Flat Design Code.

Comment: The controls within the RFDC for building separation require a building separation of 12 metres between habitable rooms/balconies; 9 metres between habitable rooms and non-habitable rooms and 6 metres between non-habitable rooms. The proposal does not comply with RFDC requirements with a building separation of 5.8 metres, however, it should be noted that the proposal complies with the minimum 2.5 metre side setback requirements within the RDCP2013. The compliance with the DCP control for side setbacks results in a 5.7 metre building separation to the adjacent dwelling and will provide ample building separation under the provisions of the RDCP2013.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the RFDC indicates that in areas undergoing transition minimum building separation requirements may be difficult to achieve and developments that provide for less than the recommended distances must demonstrate compliance that daylight access, urban form and visual and acoustic privacy has been achieved.

 

The non-compliance to this provision is acceptable given the dwelling allows for the minimum three hours of direct sunlight to the adjoining dwelling; maintains a reasonable level of visual privacy in minimizing opportunities for overlooking and the built form will generally remain compatible with the other residential flat developments within the existing streetscape. Subsequently, the variation to the building separation control is acceptable.

 

·      The proposal will result in an increase in parking and traffic impacts during construction periods.

Comment: Noted. The matter was referred to mediation between the applicant and the objector and an agreement was reached that the applicant must submit a construction traffic management report prior to the issue of a construction certificate. The construction traffic management report has been reviewed by Council’s development engineering and satisfied that the proposal will not result in any adverse traffic impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

·      The development application was not appropriately publicly notified.

Comment: Council’s notification processes has been reviewed and satisfied that the proposal has been notified in accordance with Part A3: Public Notification of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

 

·      The proposal does not provide the required 25% to 30% of communal open space as required by the Residential Flat Design Code.

Comment: Noted. The proposal will result in a departure in the amount of communal open space provided to the subject site. The ‘rule of thumb’ controls within the RFDC detail that non-compliances to the communal open space control is acceptable should the development adequately provide for an increase to the private open space areas. The proposal is acceptable in providing the minimum requirements of private open space with a minimum depth of 2 metres of the balconies and a minimum area of 8sqm for the upper floor units with two thirds of the first and second floor balconies larger than the minimum requirements for balcony sizes within the RFDC. In addition, it should be noted that the proposed communal area comprises of dimensions of minimum 5m x 6m and provides 30sqm of communal open space which is suitable in size to service the outdoor recreational needs of the occupants. The proposal will comply with the objectives of the communal open space within the RFDC and the RDCP2013.

 

·      The floor area of the site appears to exceed the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) requirements and requests Council undertake independent calculations of the FSR.

Comment: Council have carried out a floor space calculation of the site and the development will comply with the minimum FSR requirements as prescribed within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2013.

 

·      The significant trees located towards the front of the property should not be removed.

Comment: Council’s landscape officer has reviewed the development application including the two brush box trees on the Grosvenor Street verge located in front of the subject site. Suitable conditions of consent have been included to ensure they are protected and retained as part of this consent. 

 

·      The car park will detract from the appearance of the existing streetscape.

Comment: The proposed parking is located at the basement level with a driveway access from Grosvenor Street. The new basement garage structure will not contribute to any significant visual bulk from the streetscape and the driveway access is of a single vehicle width and will be consistent with a number of vehicular driveway accesses along Grosvenor Street.

 

·      The development will result in the generation of additional rubbish.

 

Comment: the proposed residential flat development will not generate any unreasonable level of rubbish that is expected from an R3: Medium Density Residential Zoning. Suitable waste facilities have been provided along the eastern side of the dwelling for waste storage to service the proposed use.

 

·      The proposal is not within the public interest.

Comment: The proposal will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to solar access and overshadowing, visual and acoustic privacy and view sharing amenity impacts. The development is considered to be within the public interest as per Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

 

Mediation:

 

The development application was referred to mediation between the applicant and the objectors of the adjoining dwellings. At the conclusion of the mediation session the applicant and the objector agreed in principle that amended plans be submitted to include the following and address the objectors concerns:  

 

·      A construction traffic management plan be submitted to Council prior to the issue of any development consent.

·      The hours of construction be restricted to minimize any risk to school children and residents during construction works.

·      First and second floor balconies on the north-eastern corner of the subject premises be setback by 500mm from the eastern boundary.

·      The basement plan shall be amended to increase the number of parking spaces from 10 to 12 spaces.

·      The bathroom windows shall include with obscured glazing.

·      Compliance with the number of parking spaces will address the issues relating to traffic generating development.

 

The objectors conclude that the proposal is inappropriate with the streetscape character with particular regard to the bulk and scale of the development. The applicant submitted additional information on the 6 August 2015 addressing the above requirements.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

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

 

Landscaped Open Space

The RDCP2013 requires a minimum of 50% of landscaped open space is to be achieved on site to provide for attractive and useable outdoor areas. The proposal will result in a landscaped area of 40% (277.53sqm) which does not comply with the minimum landscaping requirements. To justify the non-compliances to the Council’s controls for landscaping, consideration must be given to the objectives for landscaped open space which reads as follows: 

 

·      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 over including hard paving.

·      To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

·      To improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design.

 

The variation to the Council control is acceptable given the following:

 

The development will provide an equitable distribution of landscape open space across the entirety of the site. Landscape open space is provided to the front, side and rear setbacks of landscaped open space to the premises results in a suitable balance of the built and unbuilt upon areas on the site.

The proposal complies with the minimum deep soil areas with 26% (180.73sqm) to allow for stormwater infiltration. 

The communal area at the rear of the site is adequate in size and can be used for recreational activities and has sufficient soil depth (unaffected by the basement parking) to allow for the planting of mature trees and that can be accommodated at the rear of the site.

Deep soil areas to a minimum depth of 1 metre are provided along the property boundaries to allow for stormwater infiltration and reduce stormwater run-off into the adjoining dwellings.

Hard paving surfaces are reduced where possible and restricted to the pedestrian pathway on the northern portion of the site and access to the main access core.

A landscape plan has been submitted as part of the development application which incorporates a variety of planting and species compising a mix of canopy trees, shrubs and groundcovers that reinforces the landscape design and visual relief of the building.  

 

In considering the above, the departure to the landscape control is acceptable in complying with the objectives of the RDCP2013.

 

Rear Setback

The basement garage structure located at the north-eastern corner of the subject site protrudes 1.24 metres above the existing ground level and does not comply with the rear setback requirements of the RDCP2013. The ‘measurement rules’ for setbacks require setback distances be measured perpendicular from the property boundary to the outer face of the building elevation and be inclusive of semi-basement car parking structures not located more than 1200mm above the ground level. In considering the rear basement structure is 1.24 metres above the ground level the structure is considered to encroach within the rear setback area.

 

The variation from Council’s rear setback is considered to be a minor departure from Council’s controls by 40mm and will not result in any appreciable amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwelling. The semi-basement car park is directly opposite a double garage structure at no. 24 Addison Street and will remain a lower level than the rear boundary fence. The semi-basement garage will comply with the objectives for rear setbacks with regards to visual bulk and scale given the structure will not be visible from the neighbouring premises, will not contribute to any additional overshadowing impacts or visual privacy given the structure will remain non-trafficable. In addition to this, contiguous soft landscaping is provided to soften the appearance of the rooftop of the rear basement structure. The minor departure is acceptable in complying with the objectives for rear setback requirements.  

 

External Wall Height

The external wall height of the proposed development is a maximum 10.51 metres as measured from the eastern side of the dwelling (low side of the subject site) and varies given the sloping the nature of the site. The Council controls require that a maximum external wall height of 10.5 metres is required for any site that is subject to a 12 metre building height as prescribed within the height of buildings map of the RLEP2012. An assessment of the non-complying external wall heights of the development is therefore required against the following objectives under the DCP:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposal is satisfactory in complying with the objectives for external wall heights for the following reasons:

 

The applicant has provided amended plans seeking to lower the basement level by 760mm which will subsequently lower the external wall height and overall building height from RL 38.3 and RL39.3 to RL37.54 and RL38.54 in order to achieve a more compliant external wall height.

The minor departure from Council’s controls can be directly attributed to the sloping nature of the site from the western to the eastern side of the subject site with a minor fall of approximately 350mm to 200mm. The western side of the site (high side of the subject site) will remain entirely compliant with the external wall height control.

The departure of 10mm will not contribute to any appreciable building impacts to the neighbouring dwellings with regards to overshadowing, visual privacy and view loss impacts.

The bulk and scale of the development will be respect the sloping typology and stepped built form that is characterized from the west to the east of the subject site.

 

The proposal is acceptable in complying with Council’s objectives for external wall height.

 

Solar Access for Proposed Development

The southern-most building block will receive less than the required three hours of direct sunlight into the living areas and the private open space between 8am and 4pm on the 21 June. Of the proposed 9 units, 3 units will be affected by overshadowing with 66% of the units will receive the required solar access less than Council control of 70% of total number of units. The minor non-compliance is acceptable in that distribution to the number of units to the northern side of the subject site provides for a greater number of units with a northern aspect. Subsequently, the design and siting of the development is acceptable in maximizing the amount of direct solar access to the north facing units with a majority of the units receiving an acceptable level of solar access. The departure of 4% is satisfactory in complying with the objectives for solar access and overshadowing to the occupants of the subject site.   

 

Solar Access for Surrounding Development

The development will provide a reasonable level of solar access to the adjoining dwellings and will comply with Council’s controls for solar access and overshadowing. The subject allotment is orientated in a north/south aspect and most of the additional overshadowing as a result of the proposed development will fall on the subject sites front setback and Grosvenor Street. During the morning period the additional overshadowing will fall on the east facing ground floor windows of the western semi-detached dwelling between the periods of 8am – 11am and the afternoon period additional overshadowing between 1pm to 4pm will fall on the first and second storey west facing window openings of the units at no. 12 Grosvenor Street. The proposal will comply with the Council controls for overshadowing as the immediately adjoining neighbours will preserve the required three hours of solar access during either the morning or afternoon periods which is mostly attributed to the favourable orientation of the subject allotment and the surrounding urban block patterns.

 

Visual Privacy

The visual privacy impacts to the proposed development are discussed as follows:

 

Window openings along the eastern and western elevation (ground, first and second floor level):

The proposed window openings to the side elevations are designed with either a sill height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level and frosted obscured glazing or louvres located in front of the window opening. The window openings are appropriately screened to minimize any direct overlooking into the habitable room windows and private open space of the immediately neighbouring dwellings. In addition to this, the applicant has submitted amended plans to comply with the agreements within the mediation proceedings which include the provisions of frosted glazing to the highlight windows of the bathroom window openings. A condition of consent has also been included that the proposed privacy louvres to the window openings along the eastern and western elevation are fixed and tilted in an angle which will minimise any cross-viewing to the adjacent window openings of the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

Front balconies (first and second floor level):

The front balconies will mostly overlook Grosvenor Street and provide adequate casual surveillance to the street in order to provide safety and security. Louvres are provided along the full eastern and western edges of the screens to minimize any direct overlooking into the habitable room windows of the neighbouring dwellings. A condition of consent has been included that the proposed privacy louvres be fixed and tilted in an angle which will minimise any cross-viewing to the adjacent window openings of the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

Rear balconies (first and second floor level):

The applicant has submitted amended plans to comply with the agreements within the mediation proceedings which include an additional 500mm side setback from the north-eastern units. The northerly aspect from a standing position on the northern edge of the deck is directly opposite the rear ancillary garage structures of nos. 22-26 Addison Street and the communal open space areas. The balcony structures are also directly opposite upper floor balconies, however given the balconies are significantly separated with a distance of more than 18 metres the extent of overlooking is considered to be minimal. With regards to the neighbouring dwellings directly to the east and west (nos. 6 and 12 Grosvenor Street) privacy louvres are installed on the eastern and western edges of the balcony structures which will minimise any cross-viewing to the habitable room windows and private open space areas to the neighbouring dwellings.  A condition of consent has been included that the proposed privacy louvres be fixed and tilted in an angle which will minimise any cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

Ground floor east facing courtyard:

The proposed east facing courtyard comprises of a reduced level of RL28.24 and is elevated between 920mm and 1.24 metres above the existing ground level. On a standing position with an easterly aspect, the proposed development will contribute to direct overlooking over the existing 1.8 metre high side boundary fence into the west facing habitable room windows of the units at no. 12 Grosvenor Street. To minimise opportunities for overlooking a condition of consent has been included that the glass balustrading to the eastern edge of the ground floor courtyard be increased to a height of 1.6 metres above the finished courtyard level and consist of obscured, frosted or translucent glazing. 

 

Front Fence

The proposal includes the construction of a 1.965 metre high front fence located in front of the dedicated private open space and setback 2 metres from the property boundary. The Council controls for front fencing allows for a maximum height to be limited to 1200mm, as measured from the footpath level, with the solid portion not exceeding 600mm, except for the front piers. Variation to this control is acceptable and the maximum height of the front fencing may be increased to 1800mm, provided that the upper two-thirds are partially open (excluding the piers). The front fence is considered to be excessive in size and scale and considered to be out of character with the predominant low lying fences within Grosvenor Street. To demonstrate compliance with the Council’s controls and to provide adequate security to the private outdoor recreation space to the ground floor south facing unit, a condition of consent has been included that the maximum height of the front fence be 1800mm with the upper two thirds to be 30% open. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and is considered to be acceptable. Approval of the development is recommended as it will be in line with the objectives of the abovementioned documents and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impact on neighbouring properties in terms of landscaped open space, rear setbacks, external wall heights, solar access and overshadowing and visual privacy.

 

 

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/181/2015 for the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 9 units, a basement car park for 12 vehicles, new front fence, associated site and landscaped works, at No. 8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington, 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 glass balustrading on the full eastern edge of the ground floor courtyard shall be increased in height to 1.6 metres above the finished courtyard level and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing to minimize any direct overlooking into the habitable room windows of the eastern adjoining neighbour.

 

b.     The metal louvres located on the window openings and balconies along the eastern and western elevation must be fixed and be tilted in an angle that does not result in any direct overlooking into the private open space and habitable room windows of the rear adjoining dwelling.

 

c.    The front fence adjacent to the courtyard area of the ground floor south facing unit shall be a maximum height of 1800mm and the upper 2/3 (1200mm) of the fence provided with infill vertical metal slats that is at least 30% open when viewed from the street.

 

d.   The north facing windows of the ground floor unit (G01) must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above the finished floor level to minimise any overlooking from the common areas. Alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

e.   A security roller or grill door must be provided to the basement parking at the bottom of the vehicular ramp.

 

f.    Visitor entry to all units and internal common areas must be provided by intercom and remote locking systems.

 

g.   Artificial lighting must be provided for all building entries, pedestrian paths and communal open space within the development.

 

h.   An additional bicycle space shall be provided within the basement level and not be located as to cause conflict with vehicular movements in entering and exiting assigned car spaces.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 8-10 Grosvenor Street, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D72/15

 

Subject:                  14 Dawes Street, Little Bay (DA/509/2015)

Folder No:               DA/509/2015

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Installation of operable pergola at rear of Unit B of existing dual occupancy

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Bert and Gert Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Bert and Gert Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview46177.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development was assessed by external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as both applicant and objector are Council employees.

 

Proposal

Installation of an operable slatted roof pergola over an existing paved area to the rear of dwelling. The roof will cover 34m² of pavement.

 

The roof will include guttering and be connected to the existing dwelling’s gutter and down pipe system which links to an onsite stormwater infiltration system. The roof will be constructed of an operable slatted material, the slats can be moved to allow for increased sunlight during winter and shade during summer. The roof will also provide shading to the north facing rear elevation which gets direct sun during the summer months. The roof will also allow the area to be used during wet weather.

 

Site

Image 1: Proposed pergola roof in yellow.

IMG_7636

Image 2: Proposed location of pergola and connection to existing down pipes.

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 21 DP246942 at number 14 Dawes Street, Little Bay. The site has an area of 643.7m² and slopes from south to north.

 

The site is currently improved with a double storey semi-detached dwelling and associated landscaping.

 

The locality is characterized by low density residential development. A single storey dwelling is located to the west and a double storey dwelling is located to the east. The rear is a single storey dwelling and pool.

 

Submissions

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

 

·      43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

Issues

Comments

The existing dwelling has resulted in increased stormwater run-off over land within 43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay.

 

 

The existing site includes a semi-detached duplex, with 34m² of paved area at the rear of unit B.

 

The development does not propose to increase the impervious area of the site, which currently meets the minimum requirements. Whilst, the roof of the pergola will connect to the downpipes for the existing roof which link to the existing onsite stormwater infiltration system, as these is no increase in previous area, there would be no additional impact.

 

The development will include an operable slatted roof which can be rotated to allow or reflect sunlight.

 

Council ‘s Development Engineer and Compliance Team are currently investigating the stormwater disposal system to ensure that the existing system is operating effectively.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick LEP 2012

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposed development is classified as an outbuilding and is permissible with consent in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

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

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

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

·          To protect the amenity of residents.

·          To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed pergola will provide shade to the existing dwelling at number 14B, as well as a covered outdoor recreation and entertainment area.

 

The proposed pergola roofing does not result in any negative impacts relating to overshadowing or views and privacy loss. The proposed development has a bulk, scale and design generally consistent with the existing dwelling and surrounding development.

 

The proposed pergola is located within the backyard and meets the minimum setback requirements for the zone. The development is appropriate to the zone and future desired character of Little Bay.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan

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

 

The proposed development is compliant with the Randwick Council DCP 2013.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is permissible within the zone and will not result in any additional negative amenity impacts to the neighbouring sites. The pergola is consistent with the height and FSR requirements, as well as the DCP requirements for outbuildings.

 

It is considered that given the proposed pergola area is already paved and impervious, the addition of a roofed area will not further exacerbate the stormwater overland flow for number 43 Dywer Street, Little Bay, and it may improve it.  Further, the site will still meet the minimum site coverage requirements for residential development of that scale.

 

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 509/2015 for the construction of an operable pergola roof at No. 14 Dawes Street, Little Bay, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Dawes Street, Little Bay

Included under separate cover

   


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M5/15

 

Subject:                  Planning Proposal (Spot Rezoning Application) - 1T Romani Way Matraville

Folder No:               RZ/2/2015

Author:                    Ting Xu, Environmental Planning Officer - Strategic Planning     

 

Executive Summary

 

This report assesses the merits of a Planning Proposal (spot rezoning) relating to land at 1T Romani Way, Matraville, being the Matraville Telephone Exchange site owned by Telstra.

 

The Planning Proposal lodged with Council in June 2015 seeks to rezone the southern portion of 1T Romani Way from SP2 Infrastructure to R3 Medium Density Residential, with proposed floor space ratio (FSR) control of 0.75:1 and building height limit of 9.5m. No height or FSR controls currently apply to the site.

 

The Planning Proposal was prepared by Willana Associates on behalf of a prospective purchaser of the subject land, accompanied by concept drawings prepared by Ghazi Al Ali Architect and a Preliminary Site Contamination Investigation Report prepared by Geo-Environmental Engineering (GEE).

 

The assessment of the Planning Proposal has been undertaken in accordance with the Department of Planning and Environment’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals (the Guide). The Guide forms the basis for determining whether the Planning Proposal should proceed to the next stage of the rezoning process, that is its referral to the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) for a ‘Gateway determination’ under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (the Act).       

It is important to note that the Planning Proposal is not seeking Council’s consent for the proposed residential development, but requests a spot rezoning of the subject land through a LEP amendment. Specific design matters therefore have not been addressed and assessed as part of this Planning Proposal, but will be considered at any future DA stage (should the rezoning proceed). 

 

This report recommends that the Planning Proposal not proceed to the next stage of the plan-making process.

 

Background

 

Council’s Special Uses Discussion Paper and Randwick LEP 2012

The Matraville Telephone Exchange site (1T Romani Way, Matraville) was reviewed as part of the preparation of Council’s Special Uses Discussion Paper (2010). Telstra noted in its submission to the Discussion Paper that Telstra has no plans to redevelop the site and recommended that it be zoned for special use purposes. Consistent with Telstra’s request as the landowner, the site is zoned SP2 (Infrastructure) under the Randwick LEP 2012 as a direct translation of its previous Zone 5 – Special Uses under the former Randwick LEP 1998 (Consolidation).

 

Approved subdivision (DA/405/2014 and DA/405/2014/A)

The southern portion of the Matraville Telephone Exchange site has been identified by Telstra as excess land no longer required for the operation of the telecommunications facility. 

A subdivision approval and subsequent S96 modification (DA/405/2014 & DA/405/2014/A) have been granted to enable the separation of the surplus land from the rest of the telephone exchange site. Following registration with Land and Property Information (LPI), two lots will be created, being Lot 1 DP 107189 for the surplus land and Lot 2 DP 107189 where the telephone exchange building sits. This Planning Proposal applies to Lot 1, fronting Pozieres Avenue (referred to as “the site” hereafter, see Figure 1).  

 

It should be noted that the subdivision certificate has not been issued and the subdivision plan therefore has not been registered with LPI.

 

Prelodgement meeting

A pre-lodgement meeting was held with the applicant’s planning consultant on 25 February 2015 prior to the preparation of the Planning Proposal. Council officers noted at the meeting that issues that need to be addressed in the proposal include urban design, access for the rear lot, contamination, parking and impacts on the adjoining park. The applicant was also advised that spot rezoning is not a priority, needs to be carefully justified and is generally undertaken as part of a comprehensive review of planning controls.

 

Rezoning process

The process for amending LEP controls is set out in the Act, with detailed guidance and information outlined in the DPE’s A Guide to Preparing Local Environmental Plans and A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals.

 

The preparation of a planning proposal is the first step in preparing an amending LEP. The Act requires that a planning proposal must state the objectives of the proposal, the draft LEP provisions, the justification, any proposed LEP maps and details of the community consultation to be undertaken.

 

Following receipt of a planning proposal, Council as the relevant planning authority (RPA) will undertake an assessment of the information provided and decide whether or not to submit the proposal to the DPE for a ‘Gateway determination’.

 

A ‘Gateway determination’ is issued by the Minister (or delegate). The purpose of the ‘Gateway determination’ is to ensure there is sufficient justification early in the process to proceed with the rezoning. It will stipulate whether the planning proposal should proceed, whether it needs to be resubmitted, the timeframe for its completion (usually nine months from the date of the Gateway determination), the community consultation and State/Commonwealth agency requirements and whether a public hearing is needed. 

 

Following the Gateway determination, a planning proposal is formally placed on public exhibition along with any supporting technical studies. The final LEP and accompanying maps will be made by the Minister for Planning (and notified on the NSW legislation website) in accordance with the Act.  Certain LEPs which are of local significance can be finalised by Council via delegation from the Minister (this is determined at the Gateway stage).

 

Pre-gateway review

If a council resolves not to proceed with a planning proposal or has failed to indicate its support after 90 days of receiving a proponent’s request (accompanied by all the required information), a proponent may request a pre-Gateway review by writing to the DPE (within 40 days of being notified of Council’s decision).

 

The DPE will undertake an assessment to determine whether the proposal has strategic merit and is compatible with the surrounding land uses.  If the planning proposal is determined by the DPE to be eligible for the review process, it will be forwarded to the Joint Regional Planning Panels (JRPP) for the pre-Gateway review. The JRPP is required to take into consideration the DPE’s recommendation and report and advice of both council and the proponent in reviewing the proposal and preparing its advice to the Minister.

 

See Attachment 1 for flowcharts specifying the LEP making and the pre-Gateway review process.

 
Subject Site and Surrounds

This Planning Proposal applies to the southern portion (proposed Lot 1) of the Telstra’s Matraville Telephone Exchange site, with an area of 878 m2 (approximately 30% of the entire telecommunications site).

 

The land adjoining the subject site to the north, accommodates the telephone exchange building, which is a brick construction with hardstand car parking and associated vehicle access via Romani Way, a private accessway owned by Housing NSW. To the west of the site is the medium-density public housing area owned by Housing NSW, mainly consisting of two-storey townhouses with access provided via Romani Way.  A public reserve known as Rabaul Reserve is located immediately to the east of the site. This is a sparsely vegetated and turfed pocket park, provided with playground facilities. To the south of the site, on the opposite side of Pozieres Avenue are a mixture of 1-2 storey post-war and more recently built dwelling houses, with vehicle access via Pozieres Avenue.

 

Figure 1 Location of Subject Site

 

Located to the west of Anzac Parade, the area surrounding the site is predominantly characterised by low to medium density residential uses. Two schools are located approximately 200m from the site, being Matraville Soldier’s Settlement Public School and St Spyridon High School. The site is in close proximity to several major sporting and recreation parks, including Heffron Park and Chifley Reserve. Along the western side of Anzac Parade, two bus stops are located within walking distance (approximately 300m) of the site, providing connectivity to Maroubra Junction, Kingsford and the City.

 

 

 

The Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks an amendment to the Randwick LEP 2012 to rezone the site from SP2 Infrastructure to R3 Medium Density Residential with proposed FSR control of 0.75:1 and building height limit of 9.5m. The proposed LEP amendment is to allow for the future redevelopment of the site for a three-storey residential flat building with a potential to deliver 8 dwellings.

 

The Planning Proposal is accompanied by a set of concept drawings, to present a redevelopment scenario comprising 8 two-bedroom apartments (all provided with basement parking), with floor space ranging from approximately 70m2 to 78m2. As shown in the site analysis plan, vehicle and pedestrian access to the site are provided via Pozieres Avenue.

 

Figure 2 3D View of the Proposed Development

 

Pozieres Ave9.5m
(indicative)

Figure 3 South Elevation of the Proposed Development

 

Current Planning Controls

 

Randwick LEP 2012

The site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Telecommunications Facility) under the Randwick LEP 2012, allowing for a limited range of uses mainly relating to telecommunications operation and ancillary uses. This is further reinforced by the zone objectives which specify that the land is to be used for infrastructure, community purposes and other compatible and related uses.

 

The LEP does not stipulate development standards for the SP2 zone and accordingly, no height of building or floor space ratio controls currently apply to the site.

 

Located in the north part of Matraville, the site is largely surrounded by land zoned R2 Low Density Residential (with the exception of the R3 zoned Housing NSW land). The low density character of its surrounding area is also reflected and preserved through a building height limit of 9.5m and FSR contorls of 0.75:1 (for the public housing area) and 0.5:1 (for the rest of the area).

 

The site is not heritage listed and is not within or adjacent to any heritage conservation areas.  

 

Randwick DCP 2013

The DCP does not contain specific controls for development or land uses within the SP2 Zone (except for the site-specific controls for Randwick Education and Health Specialised Centre). Any future DA for the proposed residential flat building (should the rezoning be supported) will be assessed in accordance with the Medium Density Residential section and other relevant DCP controls.

 

Figure 4 LEP Zoning Map

 

Assessment Based on A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals

 

Part 1: Objectives or intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal

The applicant has stated that the objective of the Planning Proposal is to enable the future redevelopment of the southern portion of 1T Romani Way, Matraville for a residential flat building which integrates with the surrounding locality and will assist in meeting existing and future housing demand within the subregion.

 

Part 2: Explanation of Provisions

The purpose of the Planning Proposal is to amend the Randwick LEP 2012 by rezoning the site from SP2 (Infrastructure) to R3 (Medium Density Residential), with maximum height of building of 9.5m and maximum floor space ratio of 0.75:1.

 

Part 3: Justification

The assessment has been undertaken by considering the applicant’s response to relevant questions set out in Part 3 of the NSW Government’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals.

 

A summary of the applicant’s justification on several key questions is provided below.  

 

Section A - Need for the Planning Proposal 


Is the planning proposal a result of any strategic study or report?

The DPE’s Guide states that the answer to this question helps explain the context of the Planning Proposal. The applicant responded that the Planning Proposal is largely a result of a recent subdivision approval to create a separate lot for the southern portion of Matraville Telephone Exchange site, identified as excess land by Telstra. In response to this question, the Planning Proposal also notes that the proposed rezoning for residential purposes is in accordance with the 20 year Randwick City Plan. 

 

The Planning Proposal states that the site is suitable for medium density residential development given the following main reasons:

·      The Planning Proposal is consistent with the State level strategic planning framework;

·      It provides additional housing opportunities in walking and cycling distance of shops, public transport and recreational, educational and community facilities;

·      Development can occur without adverse traffic and parking impacts;

·      Residential amenity of existing properties surrounding the site will be maintained;

·      The proposed building has been designed to achieve the principles and requirements of SEPP 65 and the Apartment Design Guide; and

·      The development will make a valuable contribution to the diversity and quality of housing available in the LGA by converting the currently vacant and unused land into a high quality residential environment.

 

20 Year Randwick City Plan

The Planning Proposal notes that by developing the under-utilised site into a high quality residential flat building within walking distance to both recreational facilities and public transport, the proposal will directly contribute to the following outcomes set out in the City Plan:

·      improving the environmental performance of buildings and spaces, and achieving high quality urban design;

·      managing the demands of development and infrastructure as a result of existing and future population growth;

·      facilitating a diverse and affordable range of housing to meet housing needs;

·      maximising the identity, amenity and useability of neighborhoods; and

·      recognising and supporting the relationship that exits between transport and land uses.

 

Concept drawings

The applicant notes that a comprehensive urban design study has been undertaken to analyse the site’s constraints and opportunities and the surrounding locality, to inform the development of the concept drawings.

 

However, it is to be noted that the abovementioned urban design study has not been provided as part of the submission. Subsequent to the lodgement of the Planning Proposal, the applicant noted in an email response to Council on 29 July 2015 that analysis of the surrounding context and design principles has been incorporated into the concept drawings but was not produced in a formal document. The applicant further explained that the proposal has considered the current surrounding residential character and the desired outcomes established by Council’s zoning and development standards applicable to the adjoining land.

 

As illustrated by the concept drawings, the proposed rezoning is to accommodate a three storey residential flat building, with building height varying from approximately 9m to 10.4m, comprising 8 two-bedroom apartments and 9 car spaces (through a single level basement parking).

 

Preliminary Contamination Investigation Report

A Stage 1 – Preliminary Site Investigation report has been provided as part of the Planning Proposal in accordance with relevant requirements set out in the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55).

 

The investigation comprises:

·      a review of the site’s history to indicate sources and areas of potential contamination as well as potential chemicals of concern;

·      a review of the environmental and physical setting in which the site lies; and

·      detailed site inspection of potential sources of contamination.

 

The report concludes that there is no evidence of significant contaminating activities on the site. It is noted in the Planning Proposal that the potential for site contamination arising from previous site uses will be assessed at the DA stage.

 

Consideration of applicant’s case

 

Built form character of surrounding area

The subject site is located on the border of two distinctive housing forms, being medium-density public housing on the northern side of Pozieres Avenue and low-density dwelling houses (up to two storeys) on the other side. The established low density character of the area to the south of Pozieres Avenue, currently zoned R2 Low Density Residential, is unlikely to be changed and will remain the desired future character, whereas the public housing area, to the north of Pozieres Avenue may be redeveloped in future adopting different built forms with a re-defined residential character (further detailed below).

 

The subject site is situated on the northern side of Pozieres Avenue, adjoining Council owned Rabaul Reserve and a large public housing estate of approximately 10ha. The public housing estate, managed by Housing NSW is bounded by Beauchamp Road to the north, Anzac Parade to the east, Pozieres Avenue to the south and has an irregular shape along its western boundary directly bordering numerous privately-owned single dwelling houses (see Figure 1). The public housing area comprises mostly 2-storey townhouses with generally consistent built forms and styles. Despite that this public housing estate mainly contains townhouses, the overall density of the site is noticeably low due to the low site coverage. This public housing land is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, largely surrounded by R2 low density zoned land.

 

The site to which this Planning Proposal applies is located adjoining aging public housing stocks likely to undergo a renewal process in the future. The future prevailing character and built forms of the area is yet to be determined. While noting that medium density residential may be suitable for this location, it is however difficult to justify at this stage whether a three storey residential flat building will be compatible or contribute to the future character of the area.

 

It is considered more appropriate to investigate and identify the suitable zoning and other planning controls for the site as part of a future review of the broader precinct including the Housing NSW land. It is therefore considered premature to proceed with a spot rezoning to amend the planning controls for the site at this stage.

 

Concept drawings

It is to be noted that the concept drawings provided are indicative only at this stage. Should the Planning Proposal be approved, detailed plans submitted with any future DA may not necessarily be consistent with the concept drawings submitted with the Planning Proposal.

 

While noting that this Planning Proposal is not to seek consent for the proposed development, the proposed building scale and massing as detailed in the concept drawings has been considered to assist with the assessment of the strategic merit and potential impact of the proposed rezoning.

 

It is considered that the proposal is mostly consistent with the DCP built form controls, except for minor departures relating to building height, wall height and rear setback. However, a more detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the proposed development will be undertaken at any future DA stage.

 

Contamination investigation Report

SEPP 55 and associated guidelines “Managing Land Contamination” require consideration of contamination issues when rezoning land. SEPP 55 requires that if a rezoning allows a change of use that may increase the risk to health, the planning authority must be satisfied that the land is suitable for the proposed use or can be remediated to make it suitable. The SEPP further requires the planning authority to consider a report on a preliminary investigation where a rezoning allows a change of use that may increase the risk to health, in particular, a change to a more sensitive land use (e.g. residential, educational, recreational or childcare purposes).

 

The preliminary investigation report submitted as part of the Planning Proposal has been reviewed by Council’s environmental health officers. It is considered that the report has not comprehensively addressed contaminants of concern including but not limited to asbestos and a more detailed environmental investigation is required should the Planning Proposal proceed to the next stage of the rezoning process.

 

Is the Planning Proposal the best means of achieving the objectives?

The DPE’s Guide notes that a planning proposal should demonstrate if it is the best means of achieving the objectives/outcomes or if there is a better way. The applicant’s case is that the Planning Proposal is the best way of achieving a rezoning of the site to facilitate a medium-density residential development.

 

Consideration of applicant’s case

It is considered that a spot rezoning (as proposed) is not the most efficient or most time effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site, and the following alternative planning processes could be undertaken.

 

Review of the Housing NSW land

The site could be considered in conjunction with any future review of the Housing NSW land. Such a coordinated planning approach will ensure the future use, scale and built form of the site responds appropriately to the prevailing character of the local area.

 

Review of the Randwick LEP 2012

Including the site for investigation as part of Council’s Randwick LEP 2012 review is considered more efficient than proceeding with a standard-alone planning proposal.

 

Review of all SP2 zoned lands

Rezoning requests have been received by Council for a number of SP2 zoned sites (e.g. sites not operating or no longer required for special use purposes) seeking a rezoning to reflect and facilitate the future intended land uses. It is therefore recommended that a broader review of all SP2 zoned lands (including the subject site) be undertaken to investigate the zoning and any development standards which may be suitable for these sites. This review process could be incorporated as part of the Randwick LEP 2012 review.

 

Is the planning proposal consistent with the objectives and actions contained within the applicable regional or sub-regional strategy, state environmental planning policies or Ministerial Directions?

 

A Plan for Growing Sydney

Released in 2014, the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney - A Plan for Growing Sydney (the Plan) is a 20 year strategic plan that sets the NSW Government’s vision for housing, economic growth, environment and infrastructure. Subregional plans will be developed to guide the delivery of the Plan across the six new subregions to provide an additional 664,000 homes and 689,000 jobs by 2031.

 

Specific directions and actions set out in the Plan to address housing delivery include:

·      accelerate housing supply across Sydney;

·      accelerate urban renewal across Sydney – providing homes closer to jobs; and

·      improve housing choice to suite different needs and lifestyles.

 

The Planning Proposal notes that it is consistent with the Plan as the proposed rezoning and residential development will:

·      deliver new and more diverse housing within the short term and as such will contribute to achieving the housing targets and housing choices;

·      respond to a recognised need for housing in this locality; and

·      provide new homes in close proximity to existing infrastructure and services.

 

Other State Plans and Policies

The Planning Proposal is consistent with relevant State Environmental Planning Policies and Section 117 Directions.  The Planning Proposal notes that SEPP (Buildings Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004, SEPP 55 Remediation of Land, SEPP 65 (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development) and the associated Apartment Design Guide will be specifically addressed at the DA stage.

 

Consideration of applicant’s case

The applicant’s case is that the proposal, by delivering new dwellings in the short term, will contribute to achieving housing targets. This is one of the key points the applicant raised to justify the need for the Planning Proposal. It is considered however, that the proposed development, with the potential of delivering a small number dwellings (8 dwellings), will not make a significant contribution to meeting the housing targets. While the new dwelling targets have not yet been identified as part of the subregional planning process under A Plan for Growing Sydney, Council has been on track to meet the previous dwelling target of an additional 8,400 dwellings (between 2004 and 2031) as set by the former draft East Subregional Strategy (2007). A large proportion of the dwellings delivered in the last ten years in Randwick City are within the town centres, the Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre and major development sites.

 

It is important to note that the Metropolitan Plan sets a clear strategic direction that new housing will be focused in centres, especially strategic centres, which have supporting social infrastructure and public transport that runs frequently and can carry large numbers of passengers. In the case of Randwick City, urban renewal activities will be largely focused in suitable locations along the identified Anzac Parade Corridor and around the Randwick Education and Health Strategic Centre.

 

The Planning Proposal, which applies to a site located more than 1km from the Matraville Town Centre, 2km from the Maroubra Junction Town Centre and over 4km from the proposed light rail interchange at Kingsford, requires a stronger justification as to why a stand-alone spot rezoning is warranted at this stage.  The site appears to be in close proximity or possibly within the area specified in the Metropolitan Plan as “local renewal opportunities yet to be identified” and therefore may be included for future review and investigation by Council in consultation with the State Government.

Has the planning proposal adequately addressed any social and economic effects?

The Planning Proposal states that the proposed rezoning of the site will generate positive social and economic effects on the locality, including:

·      additional housing options provided within close proximity to public transport and strategic employment and education centres;

·      reuse of the current vacant land for high quality residential development consistent with the streetscape character; and

·      associated work opportunities during the construction period.

 

Consideration of applicant’s case

Whilst a future residential development may provide social benefits for future residents, the proposal has not adequately addressed the local needs for housing diversity and housing affordability.

 

As indicated in the concept plan, the proposal only provides two-bedroom apartments and therefore does not offer a variety of housing options to meet the diverse housing needs, including the need for smaller and more affordable dwellings. Improving housing choice to meet different budget, needs and lifestyles is a key direction set out in the Metropolitan Plan and Randwick City Plan and also reinforced by two objectives of the R3 zone which require provision of a variety of housing types for improved housing affordability.

 

It is however to be noted that the architectural drawings submitted are conceptual only and the requirement relating to dwelling mix could be addressed at any future DA stage.

 

Part 5: Details of Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal indicates that the community consultation strategy could include:

·      a public notice in the local newspaper;

·      advertising the Planning Proposal on the Randwick City Council website;

·      written notification to adjoining and surrounding landowners; and

·      display of relevant exhibition materials at Council’s administration building and other locations.

 

Community consultation will be carried out as required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (the Act) should the proposal proceed to the next planning stage being the ‘Gateway determination’. The Gateway will confirm the scope of additional information required and the range of agencies to be consulted.

 

Technical Studies and Further Investigations

 

Detailed site contamination investigation

Should the Planning Proposal proceed to the next stage of the plan-making process, a detailed Stage 2 investigation of site contamination is required to be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999 and relevant NSW EPA Guidelines to assess the suitability of the site for the proposed residential use.

 

Assessment report on electromagnetic radiation

The proposed development adjoins a Telstra-owned telephone exchange facility. While noting that this is an existing telecommunications facility already surrounded by residential uses, it is considered necessary to undertake an assessment of the electromagnetic energy (EME) level emitted from the facility to identify whether the radio frequency levels are well below the public exposure limit and whether the location is suitable to accommodate additional residents. Whilst an EME report has not been provided as part of the Planning Proposal, this can be addressed at any future DA stage.

Access to the rear lot

This Telstra’s telephone exchange site has two street frontages (Pozieres Avenue and Romani Way). It is a fenced site, with vehicle access currently obtained through Romani Way, a private accessway owned by Housing NSW. This access issue will need to be addressed prior to the issuing of the Subdivision Certificate by investigating various options (i.e. easement/right of way or access handle created for Lot 2), which may have implications for the size, layout or development potential of the front lot (Lot 1, the subject site).

 

Other studies required may be specified by the DPE as part of the Gateway determination.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome

3

An informed and engaged community

Directions

3a

Effective communication methods and technology are used to share information and provide services.

Outcome

4

Excellence in urban design and development.

Directions

4a

Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

4b

New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

Outcome

6

A liveable city

 

6e

Enhance housing diversity, accessibility and adaptability to support our diverse community.

Outcome

9

Integrated and accessible Transport.

Directions

9d

Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic Management.

 

9e

Parking is managed to balance convenience against reduced car reliance.


Financial Impact Statement

 

The applicable fee for the preliminary assessment of the proposal was paid by the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges Policy ($7,960) and further fees will be required should the rezoning progress to the next stage (to cover public consultation and further assessment).


Conclusion

 

While recognising that the Planning Proposal is broadly consistent with relevant directions and principles set out in the Metropolitan Plan and the Randwick 20-year City Plan in relation to housing delivery, the proposed rezoning is not supported on the basis that:

·      a spot rezoning is not the best, most efficient or most time effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site;

·      the need for the Planning Proposal has not been adequately demonstrated; and

·      the future planning controls for the site should be investigated as part of a more comprehensive planning review process, such as a strategic review of the broader precinct (including the adjoining public housing estate), the Randwick LEP 2012 review, or a city-wide review of all SP2 zoned lands.

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

1.     not forward the Planning Proposal dated June 2015 to amend the LEP Land Zoning, Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratio Maps for land located at 1T Romani Way Matraville to the Minister for Planning for a Gateway determination in accordance with s.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979;

 

2.     investigate the suitable zoning of the site as part of the future comprehensive planning review process which would include a review of all SP2 zoned lands; and

 

3.     advise the applicant of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Attachment 1 The LEP Making and Pre-Gateway Review Process

 

 

 

 


Attachment 1 The LEP Making and Pre-Gateway Review Process

Attachment 1

 

 

  Attachment 1

  LEP Making Process

 

Pre-Gateway Review


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M6/15

 

Subject:                  Amendments to DCP 2013- Newmarket Green DCP (Inglis Site)

Folder No:               F2013/00156

Author:                    Stella Agagiotis, Co-ordinator, Strategic Planning     

 

Introduction

 

This report recommends that Council endorse draft amendments to Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) Chapter E5 – Newmarket Green (Inglis Site) to incorporate and supplement affordable housing and public open space provisions. The report also recommends that the DCP be modified to align with the LEP changes to the Struggletown Conservation Area boundary. These amendments would be incorporated into Chapter B2- Heritage.

 

If Council endorses the draft amendments (highlighted in yellow in Attachment 1) for public exhibition and notification in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, a further report will be provided to Councillors outlining matters raised in submissions.  As the relevant planning authority under the Act, Council can finalise the DCP amendments.

 

Background

The LEP took effect from 2 April 2015 and the DCP was adopted by the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment on 30 March 2015. Councillors were notified in April 2015 (Councillor Bulletin) of the making/gazettal of the LEP and adoption of the DCP.

 

The new LEP for the Site has amended Council’s LEP 2012 and associated LEP Maps by providing for:

·      A maximum floor space ratio of 1.3:1 over the whole site subject to the provision of public open space of at least 5,000m2 on the site.

·      Rezoning of the site from R2 Low Density to R1 General Residential and B1 Neighbourhood Centre

·      Inclusion of the whole site on the Key Sites Map (therefore requiring a DCP to be prepared prior to development consent being granted which addresses a range of planning matters under cl.6.12 of the LEP).

·      A range of heights across the site from a maximum of 10m to a maximum of 25m

·      Heritage protection of Newmarket House (and it’s curtilage) as a stand-alone Heritage Item (Schedule 5) and a redefined the Struggletown Conservation Area boundary.

 

Other provisions of Council’s LEP will apply to the site including stormwater management, flood planning, heritage conservation and design excellence.

 

The new site-specific controls for future development on the site have been incorporated into the Council’s principle DCP as a separate chapter (Chapter E5).  In summary, these provisions include an overall vision and design principles, specific controls for each precinct, management of heritage items, design of the open space and the public domain, built form/design controls, landscaping, heritage and car parking. Other chapters of Council’s principle DCP will also apply to the assessment of future development applications on the site where relevant, including all the general controls under Chapter B such as design, heritage, ESD, landscaping, recycling and waste management, transport and water management and the residential controls in Chapter C.

Pre-letter of Offer for VPA

In February 2014, the applicant provided a pre-letter of offer to Council to enter into a Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) for the dedication of the public open space. The letter indicated that the VPA would apply to all future development applications subject to the making of the LEP.  It is noted that the offer was based on the proponent’s revised Master Plan submitted to the JRPP in February 2014 which was further modified by the Minister in making the final LEP. This pre-letter of offer was reported to Council in March 2014, at the time Council considered a submission to the JRPP responding to the revised Planning Proposal.  It should be noted that the pre-letter of offer did not contain a draft VPA. 

 

DCP Provisions for the Site

 

The final DCP includes detailed provisions to ensure that future development on the site is of a high quality, results in an environmentally sustainable precinct, provides high quality accessible open space, responds to the heritage context, provides affordable housing and incorporates safe pedestrian and cycle connections.  In finalising the site specific DCP for the Site, the Department of Planning and Environment incorporated many of the Council officer’s suggested amendments including strengthening many of the objectives and development principles, minimum standards for street design and requirements for drainage infrastructure. However, DCP provisions suggested by Council officers relating to the public open space and affordable housing were not included in the final DCP. These are addressed below.

 

Public Open Space provisions

The Mayor met with the Minister for Planning in April 2015, to raise concerns about the uncertainty in relation to the area proposed as public open space. This area of public open space of approximately 5,000 square metres represents about 10% of the site area. In earlier drafts of the LEP, the public open space land was included in the RE1- Public Recreation Zone.  Incorporating an open space zoning on the site and its dedication to Council was one of several matters that were of key significance during consideration of the Planning Proposal and drafting of both the LEP and DCP. Council’s correspondence to the Department highlighted concerns that the draft clause results in uncertainty and complexity in terms of the configuration of the open space and expressed the importance of dedicating the land to Council to ensure its ongoing public ownership.

 

Based on the Department’s legal advice, this land has been included the R1 General Residential Zone (which applies to the proposed residential portions of the site). This is to allow the open space land to be included in the FSR calculations for the whole site.  Under an open space zone where residential development is not permissible, this area would be excluded from the FSR calculations in accordance with the definition of ‘site area’ in the LEP. The letters to the Minister and the Department have expressed concerns about this zoning the fact that the applicant has not confirmed the open space dedication to Council. 

 

Prior to the making of the LEP and DCP for the site, Council sought the following inclusions:

 

·          minimum dimensions for the land to be specified (to ensure adequate frontage for the park)

·          the public open space should be in one contiguous parcel of land (and not intersected by any other use)

·          that the open space be clearly publicly accessible with both passive and active recreation opportunities.

 

These changes were based on legal advice obtained by Council. It is also preferable that the open space be situated on a corner to provide good access and opportunities for passive surveillance (as shown on the master plan prepared by the proponent).

 

The applicant’s a pre-letter of offer to Council to enter into a VPA for the dedication of the public open space is now uncertain as the land has been sold. Any future VPA must be voluntarily provided by an owner/applicant.  Therefore, there is now no certainty that the land to be developed as open space will be dedicated to Council.  A VPA would need to be endorsed by Council and required to be publicly exhibited in accordance with the EPA Act prior to or at the same time as lodgement of a development application.

 

Affordable Housing provisions

During consideration of the draft LEP and DCP, the provision of affordable housing on the site was a key matter. The applicant’s Planning Proposal included a draft provision requiring 5% of the residential floor space on the site to be affordable housing. Given the site’s strategic location near the hospitals complex and University, the site offers a unique and rare opportunity to address existing housing pressures in the area and to make a positive contribution to community needs. This view was also expressed by the JRPP in its endorsement of the Planning Proposal on 4 December 2012, which was subject to:

“…(b) a minimum of 5% of the net residential floor space being affordable housing;”

 

The affordable housing clause (clause 4.25) was removed by the Department from the final DCP (following representations from the proponent) and the delivery of affordable housing relies solely on an interpretation of the objectives of the Chapter E5 which state that future development shall provide for a “variety of housing types including affordable housing”.  This change has in effect diminished the importance of affordable housing delivery on this site and this was discussed during the meeting with the Minister in April 2015. Following this meeting the Minister acknowledged the need for a DCP amendment to ensure the delivery of affordable housing on the site given its location adjacent to the Randwick Health and Education precinct (letter to the Mayor in July 2015).

 

Reinstating an affordable housing clause in this Site Specific DCP Chapter is reasonable and appropriate, given the increased residential capacity and benefit enabled through the LEP amendments (from 0.5:1 under the R2 Low Density zone to 1.3:1 under the R1 General Residential Zone). The future management of the affordable housing units could be undertaken by a community housing provider (similar to the Prince Henry Site affordable housing units) who would determine the eligibility and allocation criteria for future tenants within the development.  In this locality this would include housing opportunities for nurses, teachers, care workers, fire fighters, police, retail shop assistants, students and artists.  Without the modification to the DCP, there is no guarantee that sufficient rental housing opportunities for low to middle income households will be achieved on the site.

 

Heritage Conservation Area boundary

Chapter B2-Heritage of DCP 2013 contains a section describing the history and significance of the Struggletown Conservation Area.  The map contained in this Chapter should be updated to reflect the reduced Conservation area boundary (Attachment 2).

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship of these suggested amendments to the DCP with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:              Facilitate a range of sporting and Leisure Activities

Direction 5c2:                   Consider Opportunities for public open spaces connecting paths in any major renewal of other sites or localities

Outcome 6:              A Liveable City.

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

Direction 6d2:           Undertake review of the Development Control Plan

Direction 6e2:                   Implement Council’s Affordable Housing Strategy and Action Plan to facilitate new and retain existing affordable housing

 


 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact associated with the proposed amendments to the DCP which are being prepared in-house.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed changes to Chapter E5 (Newmarket Green) of DCP 2013 will clarify the configuration of the public open space and ensure the provision of future affordable housing as part of the redevelopment of this strategically important Site in Randwick. These changes will enhance the public benefits arising from the redevelopment of the Site and should be undertaken as a matter of priority so as to provide greater certainty in the requirements for future development applications.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council

 

a)     place the draft amendments as outlined in Attachment 1 to Development Control Plan 2013 on public exhibition in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000;

 

b)     Agree that the Director, City Planning may rectify any minor, typographical, interpretation and formatting errors/clarifications if required, in preparation for public exhibition of the draft DCP consistent with Council’s resolution outlined above.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

 

Link to the Newmarket Green DCP changes

 

 

Link to the Amendments to Heritage Conservation Area boundary

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             8 September 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M7/15

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 July to 26 August 2015

Folder No:               F2008/00122

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 1 July to 26 August 2015 – one (1) was approved during this period by Planning Committee Meeting.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:     New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Clause 4.6  - August 2015 (Attachment)

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6  - August 2015 (Attachment)

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 JULY AND 26 AUGUST 2015

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb Town

Post code

Category of development

Environmental plan-ning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
 

Authority

 

DA/77/2015

 

4347

 

752015

 

 

32

 

Franklin Street

 

MATRAVILLE

 

2036

 

3. New Dual Occupancy

 

 

RLEP 2012

 

 

R2 - Low Density Residential

 

 

 

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

 

 

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views. 

 

FSR proposed increase to 0.517:1, which is 3.47% above FSR Controls.

 

 

NSW Dept of Planning

 

 

04-Aug-2015

 

 

Delegated