Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 27 October 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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 6:00pm

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

We humbly beseech you to bestow your blessings upon this Council and to direct and prosper our deliberations to the advancement of your glory and the true welfare of the people of Randwick and Australia. Amen”

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

I would like to acknowledge that we are here today on the land of the Bidjigal people of the Dharwahal Nation.  The Bidjigal people are the traditional owners and custodians of this land and form part of the wider aboriginal nations of the Sydney area.  On behalf of Randwick City Council I would also like to acknowledge and pay my respects to the Elders both past and present.”

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 September 2015

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 29 September 2015 (held at 6.30pm)

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 29 September 2015 (held at 7.00pm)

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council 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.

Audio/video recording of meetings prohibited without permission;

A person may be expelled from a meeting for using, or having used, an audio/video recorder without the express authority of the Council.

Mayoral Minutes

Mayoral Minutes, if any, will be distributed on the night of the meeting.

Urgent Business


 

Director City Planning 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.

CP45/15    6 Pearce Street, South Coogee (DA/213/2015) - Deferred......................... 1

CP46/15    43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay (DA/337/2015) - Deferred.......................... 19

CP47/15    9 Brodie Avenue, Little Bay (DA/377/2015) - Deferred............................ 25

CP48/15    23 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/429/2015)............................................... 39

CP49/15    2 Howe Street, Malabar (DA/280/2015)................................................. 53

CP50/15    6 Lister Avenue, Little Bay (DA/219/2015).............................................. 65

CP51/15    30-30A Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay (DA/550/2013/B).......................... 81

CP52/15    47 Boundary Street, Clovelly (DA/407/2015)........................................... 85

CP53/15    B501/102-106 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/491/2015)................................ 89

CP54/15    31 Pitt Street, Randwick (DA/373/2015)................................................. 97

CP55/15    38 Wentworth Street, Randwick (DA/367/2014/A).................................. 105

CP56/15    18-20 Cobham Street, Maroubra (DA/558/2015).................................... 113

CP57/15    137 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/88/2014/A)....................................... 127

CP58/15    66-68 Barker Street, Kingsford (DA/138/2015)...................................... 135

CP59/15    65 Boyce Road, Maroubra (DA/765/2014/A).......................................... 155

CP60/15    19-21 Lister Avenue, Little Bay (DA/840/2007/E).................................... 161

CP61/15    33 Dans Avenue, Coogee (DA/515/2015).............................................. 169

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP62/15    Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and clause 4.6 between 27 August to 30 September 2015.... 179

CP63/15    Kingsford Noodle Market December 2015 & Chinese New Year 2016.......... 187

General Manager's Report

GM18/15   Information Security Policy................................................................ 193

Director City Services Report

CS12/15    Supporting "Sense of Community" Street Parties................................... 199

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF42/15    Councillors Expenses & Facilities Policy - results of public exhibition............ 201

GF43/15    Donation of vehicles to the SES.......................................................... 203

GF44/15    2014-15 Disclosure of Interest Returns................................................ 211

GF45/15    Election of delegates to various Committees.......................................... 213

GF46/15    Contingency Fund - status as at 30 September 2015............................... 229

GF47/15    Investment Report - September 2015.................................................. 231

GF48/15    Hall Hire Policy Review...................................................................... 239  


 

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM49/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Bowen - Parking Meters in the Randwick LGA, given possible merger between Randwick and Waverley Councils.................................. 245

NM50/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Exploring the feasibility of funding Council re-vegetation projects through carbon offsets........................................... 247

NM51/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Fossil Fuel Divestment........................ 249

NM52/15   Notice of Motion from Cr Matson - Response to Council’s State of The Environment Report references to energy consumption ........................................... 251  

Closed Session (record of voting required)

Director Governance & Financial Services’ Reports

GF49/15    Tender for Core Switch and Related Services - T2016-07

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

GF50/15    Wide Area Network and Internet Connectivity Services - T2016-08

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (c) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with information that would, if disclosed, confer a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

 

Closed Session (record of voting NOT required)

General Manager’s Reports

GM19/15   Information Services Restructure

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with personnel matters concerning particular individuals.

GM20/15   Code of Conduct Review - Woodward Legal

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (i) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with the report contains alleged contraventions of any code of conduct requirements applicable under section 440.

 

Notice of Rescission Motion

NR10/15    Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Belleli, Moore and Neilson - Application of Council's Code of Conduct - Precinct Committees................................... 253  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP45/15

 

Subject:                  6 Pearce Street, South Coogee (DA/213/2015) - Deferred

Folder No:                   DA/213/2015

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

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

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Ms C L Bellenger

Owner:                        Ms C L Bellenger

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

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

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Recent Background

 

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

 

An assessment by the same external consultant has been previously considered at the Planning Committee meeting on 14 July 2015, where it was resolved that:

“(Stavrinos/Andrews) that the application be deferred for amended plans and mediation.”

 

Mediation was held on 20 August 2015.  Amended plans were considered at this meeting and are the subject of this report.  The amendments include the following:

 

-   Deletion of Garage Workshop / Bin Store within the northwest section of the lower level and addition of fill to provide a raised deep soil zone;

-   Setback of the rear section of the building (i.e. the raised rear northern section and northeast corner) by approximately 1.2m from the common boundary;

-   Retaining the existing fence height at the rear and ground level to provide 3m high evergreen shrubs within the 1.2m setback;

-   Provision of a landscaped planter (approximately 700mm in width) along northern side of the rear raised section;

-   Extension of the pebble surrounds around the eastern side and along the northern side;

-   Change to the dimensions of the pool from a lap pool to a square pool (2.5m x 3m);

-   Extension of the rear raised section to the west, up to the western side boundary (including bounding retaining walls);

-   Shifting of the dwelling to the south and thus reduction of the front setback to 3.4m - 4.2m from 5.141m-6.25m;

-   Reduction to the height of the timber fence / balustrade and walls around the raised rear section;

-   Addition of a media room window to the east elevation; and

-   Relocation of front fencing along the front boundary.

 

The outcome of the mediation is as stated below:

 

§  During mediation objectors present raised a number of issues although the main concern expressed by the owners of 4-8 Pearce Street and 8 Canara Ave is the location of the swimming pool being at the rear of the property creating loss of privacy, after exploring number of solution including additional screen planting, this was not accepted.

 

§  It was suggested should the proposed building be relocated by 1.5m – 2m (south) from its current location it would address concerns of parties present and agree to withdraw their objections.

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to:

 

§  Demolish the existing dwelling house on the subject site.

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

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

§  Construct a new dwelling house consisting of 3 levels, 4 bedrooms and a garage with 2 car parking spaces. 

 

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

 


 

Table 1 | Building Composition

Level

 

Lower Level

Front Section

Storage zone

Bathroom

Laundry

Cellar

Stair access

Central Section

Garage for 2 car parking spaces

Rear Section

Water Tank Storage room

Pool Equipment room

Ground Floor Level

Front Section

Front entry

Staircase

Media room

Central Section

Living and dining room

Kitchen

Powder room

Rear Section (External)

Raised terrace

Raised swimming pool

Raised deep soil area and planter box / walls surrounds

First Floor Level

Front Section

Bedrooms 2 and 3

Staircase

Hallway

Bathroom

Rear Section

Master bedroom with ensuite and walk-in-robe

Powder Room

Bedroom 4

 

Site and Surrounds

 

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

 

The subject site consists of a 2 storey, dwelling house of face brick construction with a pitched, tiled, roof. A balcony is located along part of the front elevation at the first floor level. Another balcony is located on the rear level, also at first floor level. Below is a raised balcony with access from the ground level and rear yard via a set of steps.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Streetview of subject site from 5 Pearce Street

Figure 1: Streetview of 2 Pearce Street, subject site, and 8 Pearce Street.

 

4 Pearce Street view to rear of subject site

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

4 Pearson Street east elevation

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

 

 

4 Pearson Street from rear balcony of subject site

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

 

Submissions – Amended Plans

 

In addition to the mediation process referred to above, owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the amended plan in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·           No. 8 Pearce Street, South Coogee

·           No. 5 Pearce Street, South Coogee

·           No. 8 Crana Avenue, South Coogee

 

Table 1 | Objectors Issues

Issue

Comment

Objectors: 8 Pearce Street & 8 Crana Avenue, South Coogee

Mediation Process and outcome

·        The mediation was held on 20 August 2015. The applicant furnished the amended plans that were the same as those mentioned at the Council meeting.  These plans proposed an increased setback to the rear of the building by 1.2m from the boundary.  This option was not considered to be satisfactory as the minimum rear setback should be 6.2m and the structure will still have a huge impact when viewed from the side and rear yard of No. 8 Crana Avenue.  The issue of the height of the wall, measuring approximately 5m in some points, is excessive in scale and bulk and the impacts associated will be in the form of visual dominance, overlooking and acoustic impacts.

·        The provision of an additional 700mm setback at the rear is considered as a tokenistic and material change.  The new proposed setback of 1.857m, as amended is unacceptable and as a minimum we would expect the rear podium structure to be setback 3.16m from the rear boundary and this area adequately landscaped as agreed at the mediation meeting.  The amended plans have just created a larger more expansive rear yard for the applicants. 

·        The raised podium level will adversely affect the neighbouring amenity in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, increased acoustic impacts and mere height, scale and bulk of the structure so close to the boundary will be a large visually dominating and overbearing element.  The structure fails to comply with a number of Council’s policies.

The impacts are noted and discussed in the sections below ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’, ‘Earthworks’, ‘Building Design’, ‘Private Open Space’, ‘Inconsistency with Zone Objectives & Rear Setback’.  They are also addressed in the accompanying Compliance Report.  (NB:  The visual impact is discussed in the section below ‘Rear Setback’, ‘Earthworks’, and ‘Building Design’).  No unreasonable overshadowing will result from the proposal, particularly given the orientation.

 

Table 3.1 in the attached ‘Compliance Report’ listed the non-compliances of the amended proposal.

 

NB: Floor plans indicate a 1.829m setback to the inner side of the timber balustrade, whereas the Section B-B plan indicates a 1.857m setback.  The 1.829m setback has been applied in the assessment of the amended proposal.

 

The rear yard length, measured from the timber balustrade to the rear sliding door, will be increased from 5.8m to 7.2m.

 

 

·        On behalf of my clients, I am very disappointed that the purpose and overarching intention of the agreement reached at the mediation on 20 August has not been respected or honoured.  The amended plans do not reflect the resolution that was reached by all parties at the Mediation (even though that result was not and ideal solution for my clients), nor address clients  concerns, noncompliance’s with a series of Council’s controls and reasons for refusal outlined in the independent assessment report submitted to the Council.

Noted.

·        We tried to encourage the applicant to redesign the rear yard to be more sympathetic with the location and siting of adjoining yards at natural ground level. We proposed the applicant examine development at 10 Cuzco Street and suggested they adopt design of the rear yard area as per original DA which created a rear yard that was well landscaped and located at ground level.  It was noted raised podium is out of keeping with nature of rear yards and will establish an undesirable precedent.

Noted.

·        One option presented to shift building closer to the front by about 2m so rear setback would be increased by same amount to provide a 3m rear setback, landscaping be provided at natural ground level with pine trees or the like to provide a green buffer and greater physical separation..  Although not an ideal solution and non-compliant with rear setback requirement, it would be an improvement. 

A 3m buffer setback at natural ground level is not proposed.  A 1.829m buffer, (inclusive of a stepped planter raised above natural ground level) is proposed.  The dwelling has been moved further towards the street, however this will result in a greater inconsistency with the building line setback control of RDCP 2013 and setbacks of neighbouring dwelling houses.

 

The amended plans do not include details regarding the proposed plants.

Outstanding Objections/Concerns

·        Earthworks

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

·        Rear Setback

The rear setback is only 1.857m from the rear boundary which is considered to be too close given the close proximity of both dwellings.  The current ground floor deck has an area of about 6m².  The proposed terrace will have an area of approximately 20m² which is over 3 times the current size of the balcony and will take up a substantial area of the rear yard at a similar level.  The terrace should be reduced and setback further from the boundary.

·        Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

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

The impacts are noted and discussed in the sections below ‘Earthworks’, ‘Building Design’, ‘Private Open Space’, ‘Inconsistency with Zone Objectives & ‘Foreshore Scenic Protection Area & Rear Setback’.  They are also addressed in the accompanying Compliance Report. 

 

The Useable area of the rear private open space will be approximately 70sqm (inclusive of the swimming pool and its adjacent paved area).

Objector: 5 Pearce Street, South Coogee

Mediation

·        Council recently held mediation between the applicant and neighbours but we were not informed.

Noted. This objector was not a party to the mediation as they did not object following the initial notification of the DA.

Setbacks

·        The current proposed plans do not meet Council’s guidelines for front setbacks of 6m, and the proposed plans only have a 4.2m setback.  The proposed plans also do not meet the guidelines for side and rear setbacks. 

·        The approval of such non-compliant plans would set a new precedent for future building works in the street, and as there are several old houses in the street that will be renovated in the future, this causes concern.  There have been at least 3 new developments in Pearce Street, as well as 5 Pearce Street that have all complied with Council’s guidelines.

·       

 

The non-compliances have been addressed below, as well as in the attached Compliance report (Table 3.1:  Compliance Table - Low Density Residential).

 

 

Key Issues

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

 

East Side and Rear Elevations

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

 

The amount of glazing on the rear elevation at ground level will be increased in comparison to the existing and a raised rear primary private open space will be extended over most of the rear yard.  At present, openings are limited to 4 windows plus a doorway.  The proposal will amend this situation with a wall of glazing across the rear elevation, extending onto the east elevation.  

 

Of particular concern is that portion of glazing that will extend along the east elevation.  It will result in a more imposing impact given it will be closer in distance than the existing situation, from the neighbouring property, 8 Pearce Street.  It will also be at a raised location and as a result enable direct overlooking from the proposed open plan, main living area.  It is acknowledged that the east side, living room, opening will consist of louvres in part.  It is not clear if the louvres will be fixed to limit downward views.  Nevertheless, the unprotected window section, near the corner, will still facilitate overlooking from a main living area.  It is also acknowledged that beyond the existing rear wall elevation, there is a balcony.  However, the combination of the proposed glazing and proposed raised extension (discussed further below), which provides a useable area of approximately 70sqm, is not conducive to maintaining or minimising the existing impact, but exacerbates it.

 

To minimise the impact of the rear glazing at upper level, along the east and northeast corner of the master bedroom (given the closer side setback in comparison to the existing situation), screening measures need to be adequate.  The louvres proposed on the east side must extend over the unprotected window section (near the corner) being the more critical section in terms of facilitating overlooking.  Even though the glazing will serve a master bedroom and replace a narrow balcony at upper level, there is potential to minimise the privacy implications, particularly given the closer side setback and greater extent of glazing on the side elevation than the existing situation (inclusive of the existing balcony).

 

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

 

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

 

Based on the submitted elevation plans the surrounds will achieve a maximum height of 3.95m at the northeast section (inclusive of timber balustrade which is proposed to achieve a max RL of 31.45 with an existing RL of 27.5); a height of approximately 1.94m (inclusive of the timber screen which will achieve an elevation of RL 31.45 with an existing RL of 29.5 underneath) – 2.45m (at rear north west corner with an existing RL below of 29) along the western side; and 2.45m – 3.95m along the northern side of the swimming pool and raised deep soil zone. 

 

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

 

The raised location, lack of adequate solid screen surrounds, the size of the rear raised private open space (which will encourage more active recreational uses) and minimal separation distance from the rear yard and dwelling at 8 Crana Avenue and 8 Pearce Street would not be conducive to minimising the impact on the neighbouring properties. 

 

To ensure development minimises overlooking or crossviewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

To ensure the siting and design of development minimise the impacts of noise transmission between dwellings.

 

West Elevation

The amended plans indicate a 0m side setback along the west side at both the lower and upper ground levels.  Based on the above stated objective, compliance is important in assisting the control of acoustic privacy impacts.  If the variance is approved and the neighbouring property is redeveloped in the future, this may impose an additional setback on any neighbouring development (as the proposal will be borrowing amenity from the neighbouring property) or result in a similar setback to that proposed, as a precedent would be set.  The latter will provide an inadequate separation that would not be conducive to minimising privacy implications and consistency with the desire future character stipulated by the DCP control. 

 

The existing boundary fencing will not provide adequate screening.  This will result in overlooking into the neighbouring property at 4 Pearce Street. 

 

Views

The implications for significant views (i.e. water, headland and wedding cake island views) will be satisfactory.  In particular, water views from the 2 side windows further north on the east elevation of the dwelling at 4 Pearce Street will be protected, as well as water views from the rear balcony.  The elevated and setback location of the windows and balcony of 4 Pearce Street will ensure sightlines will be above the proposed side screens.  In addition, water views to the north from the same balcony will not be affected by the proposal.

 

The proposed impact on views from dwellings on the southern side of Pearce Street will be reasonable, particularly given that the height of the proposed dwelling will be lower than the existing dwelling.  (NB: The amended proposal will retain the same RL as originally proposed).  In comparison to the existing dwelling the ridge height will be reduced from RL38.04 (as indicated on the amended elevation plans) to RL 37.1, which represents a decrease of 0.94m.  As per the original proposal, the amended proposal will entail the removal of the apex of the existing roof.  From some viewing points within dwellings along the southern side of Pearce Street, headland views and views of Wedding Cake Island will be increased.

 

Figure 5:  Headland and water view from the rear balcony of 4 Pearce Street

 

External Wall Height

In comparison to the previous plans, there will be a minor reduction to the wall height encroachments as a result of the shifting of the building further forward towards the street.  The maximum variance will reduce from 1.4m to 1.1m. 

 

No concerns are raised to the encroachments to the external wall height given:

 

§  It will result from the fall of the land.

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

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

 

Side Setbacks

On the eastern side, a variance of 12mm is proposed at the ground level and 636mm at the upper level to the side setback requirements of 1.2 and 1.8m respectively.  The variance at ground level will extend along a section of the elevation rather than the whole elevation.

 

Strict compliance with the side setback control on the eastern side would of itself be of no significant consequence to visual privacy impacts.  As explained above, the predominant cause of privacy impacts arising out of the proposal are the rear elevated primary private open space and large windows on the eastern elevation. However, the abovementioned non-compliances also contribute, albeit in a minor way, to privacy impacts on 8 Pearce Street.

 

Furthermore, compliance with the minimum 1.8m setback requirement along the eastern side, at the upper level, would provide horizontal and vertical articulation to minimise the visual bulk and scale.

 

Along the western side, a variance of 0.26m - 1.2m is proposed.  Strict compliance will provide a better separation to the neighbouring built form and reflect the desired future character, particularly where the proposed side setback is 0m.  It will provide a more consistent setback with respect to the existing side setbacks of 4 Pearce and 8 Pearce Street.

 

With regard to both the eastern and western side setbacks, the acoustic impact is of particular concern in this case given that:

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

In light of the above factors, compliance with side setback controls is considered desirable for the current proposal.

 

Earthworks

The maximum depth of excavation will be 3m and maximum depth of backfilling will be 2.25m.  Excavation is proposed for the majority of the basement/lower ground level, whereas backfilling is proposed at the rear of the site, in particular to cater for the raised deep soil zone. 

 

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

 

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

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

 

The wall and timber screen surrounds to the rear private open space will be contrary to the control for earthworks to ‘step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures, particularly where visible from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.  The surrounds will achieve a maximum height of 3.95m along the eastern side and a height of approximately 1.94m – 2.45m along the western side. 

 

Both 8 Crana Avenue and 8 Pearce Street are located on the downward side of the land slope and therefore, the raised rear yard section will increase privacy and visual impacts to these properties as discussed above.  The heights are in excess of the standard heights for fencing.

 

Building Design - General

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

 

The criteria for providing POS at ground level and minimising earthworks is also reflected by the following design control and objective of Section 4.1 of RDCP 2013.

 

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

§  Objective:  To ensure the form, scale, massing and proportions of dwellings recognize and adapt to the characteristics of a site in terms of topography, configuration, orientation and natural and built context.

 

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

 

Front Setback

The DCP requires a front setback of an average of the adjoining dwellings (5.35/6m–9.6m) being 6.98m.  The proposal will have a minimum setback of 3.4m-4.2m at the lower and ground levels and 4.1-4.2m at the first floor level.  (NB:  The amended plans provide a lesser setback at all levels than the previous scheme and thus represents more of a departure from Council’ controls and maintaining a consistent setback with dwellings on adjoining properties).  The setbacks are inadequate and not supported as they will not result in a consistent stepping along the street taking into consideration the building line continuity from 8 Pearce Street to 2 Pearce Street.

 

A further setback of all levels should be provided to ensure an appropriate alignment.  The previous scheme only required a further setback for the lower and ground levels.  As mentioned for the previous scheme, it is considered appropriate that the elements align with the front elevation setback of the dwelling at 8 Pearce Street.

 

Rear Setback

The minimum rear setback requirement is 6.24m.  The upper level will have a rear setback of 5.962m, whilst the lower ground level will have a rear setback of 1.829m to water tank storage room / inner planter box wall.  (NB: Since the lower level portion forms a storey and is not an exempt feature listed in the DCP, the setback requirement is applicable in this case). 

 

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

 

Based on the DCP objective, compliance with the rear setback control is important for adequate separation in order to address the acoustic and visual privacy impacts.  As such, given the inadequate setback, it is assumed that the acoustic implications will not be satisfactory and the rear setback will facilitate a raised rear yard that will increase the visual privacy impacts to 8 Pearce Street.  The rear setback will be inconsistent with the rear setback line of the neighbouring property to the east, which has a similar depth and size as the subject site. 

 

Private Open Space (POS)

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

 

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

 

The terrace will be raised.  Based on the associated privacy and visual impacts, the POS is unsatisfactory.

 

Inconsistency with Zone Objectives & Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

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

 

§  To protect the amenity of residents.

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact from this proposal.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

1.       Non-compliance with the R2 “Low Density Residential” objectives of the zone of RLEP 2013:

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

§  To protect the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

4.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 3.3.1 – Front Setback of RDCP 2013. Inadequate front setback.  The front setback will not be consistent with that of the neighbouring properties.

 

5.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 3.3.2 – Side Setbacks of RDCP 2013Inadequate building separation to reflect the desired future character and ‘to ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for privacy’. 

 

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

 

7.       Non-compliance with Section C1- 4.1 – Building Design of RDCP 2013The building mass is not modelled or stepped in response to the land gradient and the rear yard treatment will excessively increase its visual bulk.  The form, scale, and massing of the building do not respect and adapt to the characteristics of the site in terms of topography and natural and built context.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

12.     Non-compliance with Section C1- 5.6 – View Sharing of RDCP 2013A balanced approach to privacy protection and view sharing has not been adopted.  The proposal maximises (i.e. via the rear terrace, rear glazing at ground level, rear and glazing at first floor level) access to water views at the detriment to the amenity of the neighbouring property.

 

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

 

14.     Non-compliance with Section B10- Foreshore Scenic Protection Area of RDCP 2013The rear wall/screening will present as a prominent, undesirable feature to neighbouring properties.  An inconsistent alignment with that dictated by dwellings on adjoining properties will be provided.  The exterior colour scheme will not complement the natural elements in coastal areas.

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 6 Pearce Street, South Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP46/15

 

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

Folder No:                   DA/337/2015

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

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

 

Introduction

 

A development application seeking consent for use of the existing swimming pool as home based swimming school was recommended for approval and reported to the Planning Committee meeting on 8 September 2015. The DA was assessed by an external consultant as the applicant is a Council employee. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

“(Belleli/Matson) that the application be deferred for mediation between the parties to address the concerns regarding noise abatement and review of the proposed operating conditions.”

 

The mediation session was held on 7 October 2015 at the Council’s administration building.

 

Issues

 

The Mediator has advised Council that the parties were not able to resolve the issues in dispute and provided the following comments:

 

“The key issue discussed was noise generated from the use and the impact on neighbours. This included discussion of the need for noise abatement.

 

The applicant put forward a range of options aimed at reducing/containing the intensity of the use. There was no agreement between the applicant and objectors.

 

There was no agreement between the parties regarding noise abatement or operating conditions.

 

The measures put forward by the Applicant to reduce the impacts include the following:

 

“We propose a reduction in operating hours and therefore student numbers to address further our neighbours concerns.

 

The swim school will operate maximum of 30 hours per week on the following times/days for only part of the year.

 

9:00 am – 6:00 pm Monday – Friday

8:30 am – 12:30 pm Saturday

No Lessons Sunday

 

Months of operation, start of the September school holidays until the end of daylight saving the following year.”

 

The Applicant also “proposes to erect signs to remind clients and visitors to be respectful of neighbours by reducing noise. As well as increase the height of the rear colour bond fence by another 600mm.”

 

It should be noted however, that the Applicant would only appear to be offering the above items in lieu of removing all the restrictions in condition 6 that seek to limit the intensity of the use other than the limit on the class time being 30 minutes.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 5:       Excellence in urban design and development

Direction 5b:      New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.


 

Conclusion

 

As there was no agreement reached by the parties at the mediation, the application is referred back to Council for determination with the original recommendation.

 

 

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 conditions to this report:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Unnumbered

Steve and Gail McFadyen

undated

25 May 2015

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

The following operational conditions must be complied with at all times, throughout the use and operation of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health and environmental amenity.

 

Swimming Pool Safety

2.       The existing Swimming Pool is to be maintained in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia, i.e. with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be maintained in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Swimming Pool Requirements

3.       The swimming pool is to be operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

a)     Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

 

b)     All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and

                 

c)     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

Swimming Pool Treatment

4.       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.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

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

 

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

 

A2      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A3      In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, building works, including associated demolition and excavation works (as applicable) must not be commenced until:

 

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

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

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

 

A4      Council’s Building Certification & Fire Safety team can issue your Construction Certificate and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A5      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:

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

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

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

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A6      Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

A7      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A8      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

A9      Smoke alarms are required to be installed in all residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Building Code of Australia.  Details should be included in the construction certificate application.

 

A10     Demolition work and removal of asbestos materials:

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

 

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

 

A11     Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A12     Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Executive Report - 43 Dwyer Avenue, Little Bay

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.

DA Compliance Report - 43 Dwyer Street, Little Bay

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP47/15

 

Subject:                  9 Brodie Avenue, Little Bay (DA/377/2015) - Deferred

Folder No:                   DA/377/2015

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Proposal:                    Increase the height of the boundary wall on Florey Crescent boundary (Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Clear Line Design Pty Ltd

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 86015

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview6121.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Introduction

 

A development application (DA) seeking consent to increase the height of the boundary fence on Florey Crescent boundary of the property at 9 Brodie Ave, Little Bay was recommended for refusal and reported to the Planning Committee on 11 August 2015. At the meeting it was resolved:

 

“(Mayor, Cr T Seng/Andrews) that the application be deferred for the applicant to submit amended plans lowering the wall height and to allow for the relevant local community association to be informed of the Council’s request for amended plans.”

 

The Original application was assessed by an external consultant as a Council employee is a resident in the same strata block.

 

Amended plans were received on 15 September, 2015 and re notified to the objector. A submission was subsequently received from the resident of 9 Florey Crescent withdrawing his objection to the DA.

 

Issues

 

Council Heritage Planner has provided the following comments on the amended proposal:

 

Background

 

The subject site is located within the Prince Henry Hospital Conservation Area.  The site and a number of buildings on it are listed on the State Heritage Register.

 

The Subject Site

The subject site is within the south western part of the development area, within Precinct P3 as identified in the Prince Henry Site Development Control Plan, and is occupied a two storey townhouse, part of a group comprising nos.3 – 33 Brodie Avenue.  The townhouse group is bounded to the north by the Moran aged care facility, to the east by Brodie Avenue, to the south by Harvey Street and to the west by Jarrah House. 

 

Heritage element     

Item

Built elements in the vicinity:

•       Heffron House

•       Delaney building

•       Flowers Ward 2

Landscape elements in the vicinity

•      Eastern suburbs banksia scrub

Aboriginal archaeological zone

Zone 2- High Sensitivity

Aboriginal identified site

Tram Loop

Historical archaeological zone

Former Prince Henry Hospital complex

Historical identified site

Sandstone rock cutting and Graffiti

Little Bay Geological site

No

Remnant native vegetation in the vicinity

ESBS

 

History

DA/571/2008 for 46 two and three storey townhouses, including strata subdivision, was approved in February 2009. 

 

The original application proposed changes to the existing fence of the townhouse on the southern corner of Brodie Avenue and Florey Crescent.  The townhouse has its primary frontage to Brodie Avenue and a secondary frontage to Florey Crescent.  The existing fence to the Florey Crescent boundary was to be increased in height.  Work on changes to the fence had already commenced. 

 

The development application was considered by Council in August and it was resolved that the application be deferred for the applicant to submit amended plans lowering the wall height and to allow for the relevant local community association to be informed of the Council’s request for amended plans.  A site meeting was held to discuss possible design changes and amended plans have now been received. 

 

Proposal

As compared to the original plans, amended plans have lowered the height of the fence in part by 400mm as it steps to follow the slope. 

 

Submission

The original application was accompanied by a Statement of Environmental Effects prepared by Clearline Design which includes a Heritage section which noted that the proposed works are outside the historic precinct and that the property is not considered to be of heritage significance. 

 

Approvals

As the site is listed on the State Heritage Register, the proposal needs to be the subject of an Integrated Development Application.  As the NSW Heritage Council is the consent authority for the application, Council cannot issue development approval until the Heritage Council has provided conditions of consent.

 

An endorsement Exemption Notification Form under S.52 of the NSW Heritage Act was sought and approved by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage in April 2015 accompanied the original application.  Advice should be sought from the Heritage Office in relation to the current proposal. 

 

Controls

The section of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 which relates to the Prince Henry site, Little Bay, as a number of Objectives and Controls in relation to Fences.  The DCP includes a Control that solid front fences facing the street are to be no higher than 1.2m.  For residential flat buildings, multi-unit housing and attached dwellings, this may be increased to 1.8m where the fence is at least 50% transparent, provided this does not adversely affect the setting of the heritage buildings and open character of the site. 

 

Consistency of the proposal with LEP, CMP and AMP

The development is divided into three blocks by Florey Crescent.  The townhouse is within the central block of 20 townhouses.  Each of the townhouses has a private rear terrace and a small front courtyard separated from the street by metal palisade fencing on a masonry base with higher masonry piers.  Corner townhouses have an additional side courtyard space.  Higher masonry blades delineate the private entry porches to each of the townhouses. 

 

Along Brodie Avenue the masonry base is faced in rough sandstone.  Elsewhere the masonry base, which consists of off-form concrete and concrete blockwork, is rendered and painted.  Fencing to the Florey Crescent boundary of the subject site steps down to relate to the footpath levels.  The masonry base varies in height from 300mm to 1.1m, while the masonry piers vary in height from 1.4m to 1.7m.  The original application proposed to increase the height of the two sections of fencing closest to Brodie Avenue by 3 or 4 courses of concrete blocks (600 or 800mm).  The highest section of masonry base would have a height of 1.6m while the highest masonry pier would have a height of 2.4m.  The new masonry pier would be around 1.6m higher than the adjacent sandstone base and 1m higher than the palisades below. 

 

The current application proposes to increase the height of the two sections of fencing closest to Brodie Avenue by 1 or 2 courses of concrete blocks (200 or 400mm).  The highest section of masonry base would have a height of 1.2m while the highest masonry pier would have a height of 2.0m.  The new masonry pier would be around 1.2m higher than the adjacent sandstone base and 600mm higher than the palisades below. 

 

The proposed increase in height of the fence reasonably relates to the slope of the site, and will not create an excessive difference in scale between the Florey Crescent frontage and the low sandstone fencing on the Brodie Avenue frontage.  It is noted that the existing fencing along Florey Crescent is already somewhat higher than allowed by DCP controls.  The proposed fencing is consistent with the height of existing fencing along Florey Crescent and will not impact on the open character of the site, including settings and views associated with built and landscape elements in the vicinity. 

 

Recommendations

The following conditions should be included in any consent

 

•        Any required joints are to be provided in the rendered surface of the enlarged masonry base and masonry piers, in order to avoid cracking between the new and existing rendered surfaces. 

 

•        The enlarged masonry base and masonry piers are to be painted to match the existing rendered and painted surfaces of the fence. 

 

The amended plans have addressed the heritage issues and will provide for a fence height that is consistent with the objectives of the Prince Henry Development Control Plan.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/377/2015 to increasing the height of the boundary wall on Florey Crescent boundary (Heritage Conservation Area) 9 Brodie Avenue, Little Bay subject to the schedule of conditions outlined in this report:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

The development must be carried out in accordance with the following conditions of consent.

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

CD.1.02

Clear Line Design Pty Ltd Rev C

11/09/2015

15/09/2015

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

a)   Any required joints are to be provided in the rendered surface of the enlarged masonry base and masonry piers, in order to avoid cracking between the new and existing rendered surfaces. 

 

b)   The enlarged masonry base and masonry piers are to be painted to match the existing rendered and painted surfaces of the fence. 

 

Long Service Levy Payments

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

 

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

 

Sydney Water

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

 

Stormwater Drainage

6.       Surface water from building work and structures must satisfy the following requirements (as applicable), to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)     Surface water/stormwater drainage systems must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

 

b)     The surface water/stormwater is to be drained and discharged to the street gutter or, subject to site suitability, the stormwater may be drained to a suitably designed absorption pit;

 

c)     Any absorption pits or soaker wells should be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance;

 

d)     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises;

 

e)     Details of any proposed drainage systems or works to be carried out in the road, footpath or nature strip must be submitted to and approved by Council before commencing these works.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity.

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

8.       In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 must be complied with.

 

Details of the Licensed Building Contractor and a copy of the relevant Certificate of Home Warranty Insurance or a copy of the Owner-Builder Permit (as applicable) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration

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

 

Public Utilities

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

 

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

 

Future Footpath Provision

12.     The top of footings of any structures constructed on the boundary alignment must be at least 150mm below the existing ground level at the front boundary.  This condition has been attached to accommodate future footpath construction at this location.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

The following conditions of consent must be complied with during the demolition, excavation and construction of the development.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000 and to provide reasonable levels of public health, safety and environmental amenity during construction.

 

Inspections During Construction

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

 

Site Signage

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

 

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

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

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

 

Restriction on Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

 

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

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

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

17.     Excavations and adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times and the following requirements must be satisfied:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

·      as otherwise required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The work and provision of support to the adjoining land, must be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Building Encroachments

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

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

19.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to:

 

a.       Reconstruct/extend the concrete vehicular crossing, if required, to Council’s specifications and requirements.

 

20.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council or a Council approved contractor to repair/replace any damaged sections of Council's footpath, kerb & gutter, nature strip etc which are due to building works being carried out at the above site. This includes the removal of cement slurry from Council's footpath and roadway.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, Council’s development consent and to maintain reasonable levels of public health, safety and amenity.

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

ADVISORY NOTES

The following information is provided for your assistance to ensure compliance with the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, or other relevant legislation and Council’s policies.  This information does not form part of the conditions of development consent pursuant to Section 80A of the Act.

 

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

 

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

 

A2      This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A3      In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, building works, including associated demolition and excavation works (as applicable) must not be commenced until:

 

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

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

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

 

A4      Council’s Building Certification & Fire Safety team can issue your Construction Certificate and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A5      Smoke alarms are required to be installed in all residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Building Code of Australia.  Details should be included in the construction certificate application.

 

A6      A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:-

 

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

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

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

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A7      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A8      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

A9      Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A10     Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

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

 

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

A12     Underground assets (eg pipes, cables etc) may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

A13     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

A14     Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Executive Report - 9 Brodie Avenue, Little Bay - 11 August, 2015

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

2.

DA Compliance Report - 9 Brodie Avenue, Little Bay

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB 

Director City Planning Report No. CP48/15

 

Subject:                  23 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/429/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/429/2015

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                    Construction of new part third level to existing dwelling containing master bedroom, ensuite bathroom, deck and garden area and construction of new garden space at ground floor adjacent to northern boundary

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mrs J A Fox

Owner:                        Mrs J A Fox & Mrs J A Fox

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview20484.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as a Council employee lives in close proximity to the proposed development.


 

1.         Proposal

 

The proposal is for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house. Table 1 provides a summary of proposed works by level.

 

Table 1: Proposed works

Ground Level (existing)

 

·      relocation of the front entry to the southern boundary, and construction of a double garage;

·      new laundry and bathroom facilities;

·      creation of an internal ‘garden space’ adjoining the bathroom;

·      reconfiguration of the kitchen and living area;

First Floor (existing)

 

·      construction of new stairs to the second floor;

·      new bathroom and en-suite fit-out, including new water and energy efficient fixtures;

·      reduction in the floor to ceiling height by up to 350 mm to a minimum of 2.6 m;

Second Floor (proposed)

 

·      construction of a second floor including a master bedroom with ensuite and living room with a raking ceiling from 2.65 m to 2.25 m;

·      construction of a roof terrace (21 sqm) and non-trafficable green roof (31 sqm); and

·      installation of a photovoltaic solar system on the skillion roof.

 

2.         Site and Surrounds

 

The site contains a double fronted two storey terrace building with two single garages separated by the front entry at ground level. It contains the living areas at ground level providing direct access to the rear yard. The first floor contains three bedrooms and a loungeroom adjoining a rear facing balcony.

Figure 1 – The subject site

 

The existing building shares a party wall with a single fronted two storey terrace house to the south (No. 25 Beach Street). The adjoining property to the north contains a 3 storey residential flat building (No. 21 Beach Street). Its vehicular access adjoins the common boundary of the site.

 

The properties to the west across Beach Street contain residential flat buildings, which are elevated above the subject site due to the topography.

 

3.         Submissions

 

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

 

·      Unit 1, 16 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      16 Beach St, Clovelly (Strata Managing Agent on behalf of the owners)

·      Unit 4/16 Beach Street, Clovelly

·      Unit 3/16 Beach St, Clovelly

·      Unit 1/21 Beach St, Clovelly

·      25 Beach St, Clovelly

 

Issues

Comments

View Loss

The assessment of potential view impacts finds there would be no adverse loss of ocean views from the apartments at No. 16 Beach Street. Refer to Section 4.1 of this report.

External wall height non-compliance

The proposed second floor addition results in an overall external wall height of 9.2 m, which represents a non-compliance with Council’s maximum 8 m external wall height control. However, the non-compliant element (proposed second floor addition) would not be readily visible from the street due to its setback to the boundaries and low roof profile. The non-compliance would not result in any adverse amenity impacts to the surrounding properties. The non-compliance is therefore acceptable. Refer to Section 4.4 of this report.

Green roof – view impacts arising from the proposed vegetation

The green roof is not conducive to large plants given it has limited soil depth.

Aerial antennae or communication dish – view impacts

No details have been provided, and therefore these elements do not form part of the development application. In the event the applicant wants to erect these type of devices on the roof, a separate application would be required, if it does not satisfy the ‘exempt’ development criteria.

Proposal includes a granny flat which is prohibited in the R3 zone

The proposed second floor addition contains a master bedroom and a living room and ensuite. The SEE submitted with the application refers to it as a ‘granny flat’ with an ‘open studio feel opening up the kitchen bedroom and living area’. The plans submitted with the application do not show a kitchen and therefore it does not constitute a self-contained ’secondary dwelling’ or ‘granny flat.’ A condition is recommended that the building is utilised as a single dwelling and a kitchen (including a cooktop) is not to be installed at the second floor or converted into a separate dwelling.

The proposal is contrary to the objectives of the zone as it exceeds the building height, results in view impacts and includes inadequate ceiling heights

The proposal complies with the maximum building height of 9.5 m under RLEP 2012. There are no adverse view impacts from surrounding properties. The proposed floor to ceiling heights provide adequate internal amenity refer to Section 4.5 of this report.

Proposal exceeds the Council building height controls and objectives which seek to development does not adversely impact amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land  in terms of visual bulk, privacy overshadowing and views

As stated above, the proposal does not exceed Council’s maximum building height control.

Plans and sections do not show the floor space ratio (FSR)

The applicant provided a FSR calculation based on Council’s definition of gross floor area (GFA) in RLEP 2012. The proposal has a GFA of 260 sqm, which equates to an FSR of 0.91:1. The calculation of GFA excludes the parking garage but includes the storage room under the dwelling.

 

The proposal is excessive and constitutes an overdevelopment of the site

The design of the proposed second floor addition incorporates a low roof profile and is setback by 930mm to the side boundaries. The proposed second floor addition sits comfortably within the site and results in no adverse impacts to the adjoining properties. The proposal therefore is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

 

No SEPP 1 objection was submitted with the DA

SEPP 1 has been superceded by Clause 4.6 in RLEP 2012. In any event there is no breach of a statutory control, and no Clause 4.6 objection is required in this circumstance.

Randwick DCP 2103 requirements are not met – external wall height

Refer to Section 4.4 of this report.

The SEE is incomplete and misleading and does not consider the Section 79C(1) considerations

The SEE submitted with the application is sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed development

Privacy Impacts from windows on the northern elevation

There will be no adverse privacy impacts from windows on the northern elevation. Refer to Section 4.3 of this report.

The northern wall on the boundary should be capable of sustaining the third floor addition

A structural adequacy condition is recommended in the development consent.

Concern with the new acrylic render of the northern wall

A condition requiring materials/finish details to the satisfaction of Council is recommended in the development consent.

Impacts of the retaining wall in the rear yard along the northern boundary

There are no details of a proposed retaining wall in the rear yard and therefore it does not form part of this application.

Loss of solar access to future roof solar panels, rear deck and backyard

The proposed second floor addition will result in additional overshadowing of the roof of the southern adjoining neighbour. However, part of the roof will continue to receive direct sunlight during the winter solstice. The proposal would not result in any additional overshadowing of the living room windows or private open space at ground level. Refer to Section 4.2 of this report.

Privacy concerns to the rear deck of the southern adjoining property

The potential privacy concerns to the rear deck of the southern adjoining neighbour have been addressed in Section 4.3 of this report.

A pre-dilapidation report should be provided with the application

Suitable conditions are included in the recommendation.

The design is inconsistent with the area and is too bulky

The proposed second floor addition adopts a low profile and is not readily visible from the public domain. The proposal is considered compatible with other buildings in the surrounding area.

 

4.         Key Issues

 

4.1 View Impacts

The impacts of proposed second floor addition on ocean views from the residential flat building at No. 16 Beach Street, which is directly opposite the site on the western side of Beach Street (refer to Figure 2) are assessed below. It comprises four apartments and four storeys above ground level parking. The owners of apartments 1, 3 and 4 raised concerns regarding the potential loss of ocean views from their apartments to the east. No objection was received from the owner of unit 2, which is at the rear (western side) of the building.

 

In response to the concerns raised by neighbours in relation to potential view impacts, the applicant erected two height poles and a string line, which represented the highest point of the proposed second floor addition. A site inspection was held on 26 August, and it was considered the height poles were an accurate indication of the proposed second floor addition, which is 1.1 m above the height of the building’s front parapet.

 

Figure 2 – View of No. 16 Beach Street

 

The general principle relating to view sharing identified in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004) established a four-step process for considering the impact of a development on views.

1.     An assessment of the value of views to be affected by reference to their nature, extent and completeness.

2.     A consideration of how views are obtained and what part of the property the views are obtained from.

3.     A qualitative assessment of the extent of the impact in terms of severity particularly as to whether that impact is negligible minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

4.     An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact particularly in terms of compliance with applicable planning controls and whether a different or complying design must produce a better result. 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.

 

These view sharing principles are referred to for assessing the potential view impacts associated with the proposal.

 

Apartment 4 - Balcony and adjoining internal living area (top level)

The balcony currently has distant views of the ocean to the east. The proposed development would not result in any loss of ocean view when standing or sitting on the balcony, or from the adjoining internal living area (refer to Figures 3 and 4).

 

Figure 3 – View from the edge of the balcony at Unit 4 No. 16 Beach Street

 

Figure 4 – View when standing in the internal living area at Unit 4 No. 16 Beach Street

 

Apartment 3 – Balcony and adjoining internal living area

The balcony currently has distant views of the ocean to the east. The proposed development would not result in any loss of ocean view when standing or sitting on the balcony, or from the adjoining internal living area (refer to Figures 5 to 7).

 

Figure 5 – View standing at the edge of the balcony at Unit 3 No. 16 Beach Street

 

Figure 6 – View seated at the outdoor balcony at Unit 3 No. 16 Beach Street

 

Figure 7 – View from the internal living area at Unit 3 No. 16 Beach Street

 

Apartment 1 – Balcony and adjoining internal living area

There are no ocean views from the balcony or internal living area because the floor level is below the parapet of the existing building on the subject site, which obscures the ocean views to the east. 

 

Conclusion

The ceiling height at the first floor has been lowered to ensure the proposed second floor addition complies with the overall height control of 9.5 m in RDCP 2013. As a result, the second floor addition is only 1.1 m above the front parapet of the existing building. The analysis of the view impacts indicates there would be no loss of ocean views from the apartments at No. 16 Beach Street. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of view impacts. 

 

4.2    Solar Access

The applicant submitted shadow diagrams with the application, which illustrate the shadow impacts on the adjoining property to the south at No. 25 Beach Street. 

 

Council’s solar access controls require a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight at the winter solstice to a portion of the living room windows on adjoining dwellings. The living room windows at No. 25 are orientated to the east (rear), and therefore not affected by the additional shadow cast by the proposal.

 

Council’s solar access controls also require the retention of sunlight to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes of neighbouring dwellings above 6 m. The neighbours at No. 25 Beach Street raised concern with overshadowing as they intend to install solar panels on the roof of their dwelling, which is flat and at one plane and situated directly to the south of the subject site. The shadow cast by the existing development covers approximately 50 per cent of the adjoining roof with its southern half receiving direct sunlight.

The proposed second floor addition would result in an additional 10-20 per cent of the adjoining roof being affected by shadow at the winter solstice between 10:00am and 2:00 pm. However, approximately 30-40 per cent of the total roof area would continue to receive sunlight between 10:00am and 2:00pm at the winter solstice. After 2:00pm, the additional shadow cast falls within the shadow cast by the existing building, and results in no additional loss of sunlight to the roof.  The opportunity to install solar panels on the southern side of the adjoining roof towards the rear would be retained on the adjoining roof.

 

Council’s solar access controls also require a minimum of three hours direct sunlight at the winter solstice to the private open space of adjoining properties. The neighbours at No.25 raised concern with potential overshadowing of the rear deck at the first floor off the bedroom and the rear yard at ground level. The proposed second floor addition is massed to the west (street) and the additional shadow cast by the proposal does not affect the upper level balcony or the rear yard at No. 25 Beach Street.

 

Importantly, the proposal complies with the overall building height control in RLEP 2012, and the shadow cast by the proposed second floor addition is consistent with what is reasonably expected for a compliant development. Furthermore, the additional shadow cast by the proposal does not affect the private open space or living room windows at No. 25 Beach Street. The overshadowing impacts to No. 25 Beach Street are therefore acceptable. 

 

4.3    Privacy

The proposed development includes new window openings along the northern elevation and a balcony at the second floor, which results in increased potential for viewing into the adjoining properties. The potential privacy impacts are addressed as follows:

 

Garage window (ground level)

The new opening is a highlight window with a minimum sill height 2 m above ground level, which mitigates the potential privacy impacts to the windows along the southern elevation at No. 21 Beach Street.

 

Kitchen and internal courtyard window (ground level)

The new openings are full height (slab to slab), and include operable louvers, which mitigate privacy impacts to the windows along the southern elevation at No. 21 Beach Street.

 

Bathroom windows (first floor)

The windows are full height (slab to slab), and include operable louvers, which mitigate privacy impacts to the windows along the southern elevation at No. 21 Beach Street.

 

Master Bedroom/Living room/bathroom (second floor)

The windows are setback 930 mm from the edge of the building, which prevents looking down into the windows along the southern elevation at No. 21 Beach Street.

 

Roof Terrace (second floor)

The proposed roof terrace provides direct access from an internal living space and has an area of 21 sqm. Its southern edge is setback 1.2 m from the common boundary to No. 25 Beach Street. The distance from the eastern edge of the terrace to the existing upper level deck at the rear of No. 21 Beach Street is 4 m. There is a potential for oblique views from the eastern edge of the terrace down into the upper level deck at No. 21 Beach Street. Due to the potential privacy impacts, the depth of the terrace should be reduced to 2 m, which would increase the separation distance to 6 m (from the eastern edge). The reduced area would still be sufficient for a table and chairs and passive recreation activities. A condition to this effect is recommended in the development consent.

 

4.4    External Wall Height

Randwick DCP 2013 requires a maximum external wall height of 8m. The definition of ‘wall height’ is the vertical distance as measured from the ground level (existing) to the topmost point of an external wall. The existing dwelling house has a maximum external wall height of 8.1m. The proposed second floor addition increases the overall external wall height by 1.1 m to 9.2 m, which exceeds the maximum 8m wall height control.

 

The applicant justifies the non-compliance on the basis that the additional wall height is setback from the existing façade and therefore reads as a different façade and not a continuous plane.

 

The purpose of the external wall height control is to ensure the development is of a suitable scale, and does not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining properties. The non-compliant element (i.e. second floor addition) is setback 630mm from the front (street) wall and 930 mm from the side boundary walls, and is not readily visible from the street. The building would continue to read as a two storey terrace, which is compatible with the adjoining terrace to the south at 25 Beach Street. The proposed second floor addition does no result in any adverse overshadowing impacts to the living areas or private open space of the southern adjoining property. Also, the additional wall height does not result in any view impacts from the surrounding properties.

 

The proposed maximum external wall height is therefore acceptable.

 

4.5    Ceiling Height

Randwick DCP 2013 requires a minimum ceiling height of 2.7 m for living areas. The ceiling height at the first floor will be reduced from 3.05 m to 2.6 m and the second floor addition will have a raking ceiling of 2.65 m (western end) to 2.25 m at its eastern end. The applicant has advised the ceiling height has been lowered to ensure the building complies with the overall height control of 9.5 m.   The objective of the ceiling height control is to maintain appropriate internal amenity in terms of ventilation and daylight access. Despite the non-compliance with the ceiling height control, the proposal would achieve adequate internal amenity at the first and second floor with window openings to the north and east which would provide direct sunlight and facilitate cross ventilation.

 

The minimum floor to ceiling height in the Building Code of Australia (BCA) for a habitable space in a dwelling house is 2. 4 m. The proposal complies with this requirement except for the eastern end of the second floor (loungeroom), which has a minimum ceiling height of 2.25 m. The BCA allows for a reduction in some circumstances for rooms with a sloping ceiling.

 

4.4    Design/Streetscape

The proposed second floor addition is setback 630 mm and 930 mm to the front and side boundaries, respectively, which minimizes its visual impact. Also, the ceiling height below (at the first floor) has been lowered, which reduces the overall height of the proposed second floor addition. Its skillion roof slopes to the east away from the street, and is a maximum of 1.1 m above the existing parapet at the front of the building. The design of the proposed second floor addition adopts a low profile and would not be readily visible from Beach Street. The highest point of the roof (RL 51.1) is below the ridge of the residential flat building to the north at No. 21 Beach Street (RL 51.55). Despite the proposed part third level, the building maintains its two storey character, which is compatible with the adjoining terrace to the south at No. 25 Beach Street.

The proposed second floor addition is therefore acceptable.

 

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 overall building height control under RLEP 2012, and the building setback controls in RDCP 2013. The design incorporates a low roof profile and maintains the two storey character of the building, which is compatible with the adjoining terrace to its south. The proposal is also consistent with the built form character of the locality.

 

The proposed second floor addition would result in some additional overshadowing to the adjoining dwelling to the south at No. 25 Beach Street. Whilst the additional shadow does not affect the living room windows or private open space of the adjoining dwelling to the south, the amount of roof area available for solar panel collectors would be reduced by approximately ten to 20 per cent. Despite the reduction in direct sunlight on the adjoining roof, approximately 30 to 40 per cent of the total roof area would continue to receive sunlight between 10:00am and 2:00pm at the winter solstice. Importantly, the proposal complies with the overall building height control in RLEP 2012, and the shadow cast by the proposed second floor addition is consistent with what is reasonably expected for a compliant development. The additional overshadowing is considered reasonable in this circumstance.

 

Subject to reducing the size of the roof terrace at the second floor, the proposal would not result in any adverse privacy impacts to the adjoining properties. There would be no loss of ocean views from the surrounding properties, in particular from the upper level apartments at No. 16 Beach Street, which retain panoramic ocean views to the east.

 

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. 429/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at No. 23 Beach Street, Clovelly, subject to the non Standard condition and the following 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 proposed roof terrace (hardstand) adjoining the master bedroom/living room at the second floor shall be reduced in size to a maximum area of 12 sqm, and a maximum depth of 2 m from the rear building alignment. The roof terrace (hardstand area) removed as a result of this amendment is to be replaced with green roof planting.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 23 Beach Street, Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP49/15

 

Subject:                  2 Howe Street, Malabar (DA/280/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/280/2015

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including a new second floor addition.

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Mr. T Maguire

Owner:                        Mr P R Johnstone and Mrs C M Johnstone

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview29852.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors D’Souza, Nash and Stavrinos.

 

Proposal

The proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new second floor addition.

 

The altered layout will include:

 

·      A double garage, 2 bedrooms, a study, WC, rumpus room and lounge area at ground floor level.

·      Kitchen, living and dining room areas leading onto front and rear decks, 2 bedrooms, bedroom 3 with en-suite and a central bathroom at first floor level.

·      A master bedroom with bathroom, walk-in robe and a small deck area at second floor level.

 

The proposal includes a floor space of 334.7m2 (FSR of 0.645:1) and a maximum height of 8.6m.

 

In response to the originally submitted application, a request was made for a more comprehensive view loss assessment including the placing of height poles in relation to the uppermost floor.

 

The report is based on the amended view loss assessment submitted as a result of this process.

 

Site

 

The subject site is a regular shaped allotment on the north western side of Howe Street between Prince Edward Street and Victoria Lane. The land has a splayed frontage to Howe and Prince Edward Streets of 10.67m and 30.48m respectively and a total site area of 518.5m2.

 

The land has an indiscernible fall from front to rear and is for all intents and purposes a level block of land with the exception of a sandstone rock ledge in the north western corner of the site adjacent to Prince Edward Street which rises to a height of approximately 2m. The site is approximately 3m -4m below the Prince Edward Street carriageway level.

 

Existing on the site is a 2 storey dwelling house with a swimming pool at the rear. Adjoining the site to the north least is a 2 storey dwelling house and to the north west a single storey dwelling house fronting Prince Edward Street. To the west across Prince Edward Street are predominantly 2 storey detached dwelling houses with excavated parking levels. To the south across Howe Street is the Randwick Golf club.

 

The locality is occupied mainly by traditional detached dwellings with an evolving contemporary built form enjoying interrupted to expansive views towards the Malabar Bay, the headland and the Pacific Ocean.

 

Figure 1: The subject site sowing the adjoining 2 storey dwelling house to the east at No. 4 Howe Street.

 

Figure 2: View of the subject site from Prince Edward Street.

 

Figure 3: View of the streetscape opposite the subject site including Nos. 114, 116 and 118 Prince Edward Street.

 

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:

 

Issue

Comment

114 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

 

The proposal does not allow for an accurate assessment of view impact and height poles should be placed.

Height poles for the uppermost floor were placed and the amended view loss assessment demonstrates a minor to moderate impact on the views currently enjoyed form this property. This is addressed in detail under view sharing in the key issues section of this report.

Based on the height pole placement the proposal represents a severe impact on views currently enjoyed and a more skilful design should be explored.

The amended view loss assessment demonstrates a minor to moderate impact on the views currently enjoyed form this property. This is addressed in detail under view sharing in the key issues section of this report.

116 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

 

The proposed development results in a severe impact on views currently enjoyed from this property.

Height poles for the uppermost floor were placed and the amended view loss assessment demonstrates a minor impact on the views currently enjoyed form this property. This is addressed in detail under view sharing in the key issues section of this report.

118 Prince Edward Street, Malabar (to original submission)

 

Excessive extent of development in terms of FSR and Building height.

The FSR of 0.645:1 complies with the maximum allowable of 0.65:1 and the maximum building height is approximately 1.1m below the maximum allowable.

The view loss assessment is inadequate and height poles should be placed.

Height poles for the uppermost floor were placed and the amended view loss assessment demonstrates a minor impact on the views currently enjoyed form this property. This is addressed in detail under view sharing in the key issues section of this report.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Clause 2.3 of the DCP provides that:

Any proposals seeking to vary the numerical controls will be assessed against the following criteria:

 

i)      Consistency with the general objectives of the LEP, and the general objectives and specific control objectives of this DCP.

ii)      The degree or numerical extent of variation from the control.

iii)     The presence of any existing site constraints rendering strict compliance difficult to achieve, such as:

 

·       Site topography

·       Site orientation

·       Allotment configuration

·       Allotment dimensions

·       Existing building structures to be retained

 

iv)     Potential impacts on the structural stability, visual amenity, solar access, privacy and views of the adjoining properties as a result of the variation.

v)      Potential impacts on the public domain in terms of streetscape character, views and vistas and pedestrian amenity.

vi)     Whether strict compliance with the controls will or will not permit construction of a building with reasonable dimensions, internal amenity, open space provision and architectural character.

 

External Wall and Ceiling Height

The DCP outlines the following objectives in this regard:

 

·      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 maximum external wall height to 7m and the proposed third floor will have a maximum external wall height of 7.95m. The departure is supported on this occasion for the following reasons:

 

·      The departure is relative minor and results in an overall maximum building height of 8.6m, well under the maximum allowable.

·      The proposed third floor will provide for a simple but interesting roof form and a built form that is compatible with the streetscape.

·      The inclusion is extensive window openings to this level will promote light and provide for a quality internal space.

·      The departure from the strict numerical standard on this occasion will have negligible additional impacts in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity.

View sharing

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

 

Objectives

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

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

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Concern was raised during notification with regard to view sharing. Essentially the objections were generated from properties opposite the site at 114, 116 and 118 Prince Edward Street.

 

Height poles were placed to get an accurate indication of actual view loss associated with the proposed upper floor. The following photos show the existing view lines from the affected properties with the outline of the uppermost floor:

 

Figure 4: The context of the view sharing issue in relation to the coastline.

Figure 5: Whole view from front ground floor balcony

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: Ground floor centre balcony standing.

Figure 7: Location of sites concerned with view sharing, in relation to the subject site.

 

Figure 8: Ground floor lounge room western end standing.

Figure 9: Ground floor centre lounge room standing.

 

Figure 10: Ground floor front balcony whole view standing.

 

Figure 11: Ground floor front balcony standing

Figure 12: Ground floor centre lounge room standing.

Figure 13: Ground floor centre lounge room sitting.

Figure 14: Ground floor dining room standing.

 

Figure 15: Whole view front balcony standing.

Figure 16: Front ground floor level entry.

Figure 17: Centre living/dining room standing.

Figure 18: Front dining room sitting.

Figure 19: Front balcony sitting.

Figure 20: Front dining room standing.

Figure 21: Front dining room sitting.

 

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

 

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

“Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (eg of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, eg a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

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

 

·      114 Prince Edward Street

The above photos show sitting and standing views from front balcony and living and dining room areas to land and water interface of the northern side of Malabar Bay including the headland. Interrupted views including the land/water interface to the headland will be affected.  Uninterrupted views will remain available from front second floor areas.

 

·      116 Prince Edward Street

The above photos show sitting and standing views from front balcony and living and dining room areas to land and water interface to northern side of Malabar Bay and the northern headland. Interrupted views will remain available to the headland from these areas and uninterrupted views from front second floor areas.                   

 

·      118 Prince Edward Street

The above photos show sitting and standing views from front balcony and living and dining room areas to land and water interface to the northern side of Malabar Bay including the headland. Views including the land and water interface to the northern side of Malabar Bay will be impacted. Uninterrupted views will remain to the northern side of Malabar Bay headland. Uninterrupted views will remain available from front second floor areas.


 

Principle 3: Assess the extent of the impact.

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

 

Having regard to the views impacted and maintained from the different vantage points of the affected properties the respective view loss is considered to be:

 

·      114 Prince Edward Street – Minor to moderate

·      116 Prince Edward Street – Minor

·      114 Prince Edward Street – Minor

 

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

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

 

The proposal is compliant with the FSR and well under the maximum height controls contained within the RLEP. Whilst there is a minor departure from the maximum allowable external wall height control, this departure is entirely justified as addressed in the previous section of this report.

 

The proposed development is considered to embody a skillful design with an associated reasonable and sustainable impact in relation to view sharing by way of the incorporation of the following measures and for the reasons outlined:

 

·      The ceiling height of the uppermost floor is 2.4m which a minimal acceptable ceiling height for habitable areas and the resultant building height is well under the maximum allowable.

·      The uppermost floor constitutes a modest component of the addition taking due account of associated view impacts which, when combined with other ground and first floor additions results in a building of bulk and scale as per that envisaged under the applicable planning controls for the locality.

·      The building inclusive of the proposed uppermost floor when compared to the relative height of Prince Edward Street will appear as a 2 storey building only as the ground floor level is for the most part below the level of the roadway.

·      Notwithstanding the view impact associated with the proposed development significant views will be retained from all of the affected properties to Malabar Bay, Malabar Headland, the Pacific Ocean and the public domain.

 

As such, the proposal is consistent with the DCP controls and the Tenacity principle relating to view sharing.

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 compliant with the principal development standards of maximum floor space ratio and maximum building height of 9.5m.

 

The proposal satisfies all controls within the DCP with the exception of the departure from the maximum external wall height which is justified on this occasion.

 

The environmental impacts associated with the proposed development including those relation to view loss and amenity are minor and sustainable.

 

 

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. 280/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including a new second floor addition at No. 2 Howe Street, Malabar, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 2 Howe Street, Malabar

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP50/15

 

Subject:                  6 Lister Avenue, Little Bay (DA/219/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/219/2015

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Construction of a new part 2, part 3 storey dwelling house with roof terrace, rear swimming pool, boundary fence, associated site and landscape works. (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Stanic Harding Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr V Petrovich

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview67923.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the cost of the proposal development is greater than $2 million.

1.      Proposal

 

Construction of a new part 2, part 3 storey dwelling house with roof terrace, rear swimming pool, boundary fence, associated site and landscape works. The subject site is located within the Prince Henry Heritage Conservation Area.

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the cost of the development exceeds $ 2 million.

 

The application is recommended for approval.

Figure

Figure 1: Perspective of proposed development

 

2.      Site

 

The site is located on the northern side of Lister Avenue between Pavilion Drive to the west and Murra Murra Place Street to the east. The lot is presently vacant.

 

The site has a frontage to Lister Avenue of 18m and a total site area of 642.1m2 (as per survey). The site has a depth of between 34.02m and 37.33m and is almost rectangular in shape. The topography of the site is extremely steep with the topography sloping to the rear. The site has a gradient of approximately 20.8%. The proposal does not involve the removal of any significant vegetation.

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview32993.png

Figure 2: Subject site

 

Development in the locality is characterised by low density residential development, with primarily part 2 and part 3 storey dwelling houses located to the east and west, with two storey terrace housing located to the south along the opposite side of Lister Ave. Immediately to the north of the subject site is the Coast Golf & Recreation Club.

 

Figure 3: View to Subject Site

 

Figure 4: Streetscape (Lister Ave)

 

Figure 5: View to the adjoining properties (No. 4 Lister Ave on the Right and No. 8 Lister Ave on the Left)

 

3.      Submissions

 

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

 

4.      Key Issues

 

4.1    Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012)

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

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

The site is zoned R1 – General Residential.

Lot size (Min)

642.1m2

Floor Space Ratio (Max)

0.5:1

0.512:1

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

 

Height of Building (Max)

9m

9m

Yes

 

*See exception to development standard below.

 

4.2    Request to vary a development standard – RLEP Clause 4.6

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 4.4: Floor Space Ratio, 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

 

4.3    Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4 (2A) states that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map. The subject proposal is for a dwelling house and the subject site as per the FSR map has a maximum F.S.R of 0.5:1. Based upon the site area of 642.1m², the standard would indicate 321.05m² of gross floor area may be accommodated within the scope of the standard

 

The FSR resulting from the amended proposal is 0.512:1. The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Existing

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.4 (2A)

Floor space ratio

0.5:1 (321.05m²)

N/A

0.512 (328.6m²)

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

(2.3%)

7.55m²

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the Wehbe case, Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the 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’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

 

 

 

Planning comment:

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

 

·      Regarding objective (a), the site has a total area of 642.1m² and a proposed F.S.R of 0.512:1, exceeding the allowable G.F.A by 7.55m². Within the proposed building footprint, a portion of the living room and gym at pool level and the dining area at lower ground level (approximately 30 square metres total) will be located within excavated areas of the site (Defined as basement areas as per the RLEP 2012). This sub floor space will not be visible from the adjoining properties or the streetscape and as such will not result in any significant additional visual bulk. The proposed development is compatible with the adjoining part 2, part 3 storey dwelling houses, No. 8 Lister Ave has an approved F.S.R of 0.5:1 and No. 4 Lister Ave has an approved F.S.R of 0.545:1.

 

In addition to the above the proposal meets the relevant setback, landscape and building and external wall height controls. It is considered that the proposal relates to surrounding development in a manner that is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

·      In relation to objective (b), the scheme is articulated and modulated on all facades, and makes effective use of the split level design, provision of courtyards and differing materials to break unrelieved walls and provide visual interest within the site. The proposal results in a scale that remains consistent with adjoining and surrounding development. The proposed landscaping regime provides for a sufficient amount of deep soil area on the site. In addition the proposal meets the relevant BASIX requirements and BASIX Certification has been provided.

 

·      In regards to objective (c), the subject site is located within the Prince Henry Hospital Conservation Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan Amendment No.28.  The site and a number of buildings on it are listed on the State Heritage Register for its Aboriginal, natural, landscape and built heritage values. It is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts to identified built or landscape elements, or to the significance of the heritage conservation area. In addition the proposal has low potential for the identification of unknown archaeological material, and potential impacts on the geological site are manageable. It is considered that the proposed dwelling is consistent with the adjoining developments within the streetscape and the relevant objectives and controls with regards to the Amended Master Plan (August 2003), the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013.

 

·      Regarding objective (d), the proposed development has a south to north orientation; the proposal will meet the relevant overshadowing controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013. The proposal is consistent with the relevant controls and objectives with regards to FSR, building height, site coverage, landscaped area and setbacks. In addition to the above the proposal is considered to be consistent with the adjoining properties within the urban block with regards to built form.

 

The proposal will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining properties or the character of the streetscape. Specifics of non-compliances are further discussed in the relevant sections of this report and relevant conditions addressing these non-compliances have been recommended in the development consent.

 

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 existing 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 R1 - General Residential) are:

 

•      To provide for the housing needs of the community.

•      To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

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

•      To allow the comprehensive redevelopment of land for primarily residential and open space purposes.

•         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 R1 General 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 R1 zone.

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites. The proposed built form serves as a means to redevelop the vacant land for residential purposes.

 

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 use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. Further, the proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

4.4      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. The proposal is subject to Part E4, relating to the Prince Henry Site – Little Bay.

 

·      Built Form

Part E4, Section 4 relating to building design, details that development on the subject site is to be a maximum 2 storeys in height. The proposed development is part 2, part 3 storeys in height; this is a direct result in the steep fall in topography towards the rear of the site. The proposal will result in two small sections of the development which are classified as being three storeys in height; these are shown in figure 6 and 7 below:

 Figure 6: Areas shaded green indicate 3 storeys in height (Eastern Elevation)

 

Figure 7: Areas shaded green indicate 3 storeys in height (Western Elevation)

 

As seen above the areas of non-compliance are extremely minor and are direct results of the topography of the land, which slopes to steeply to the rear (20% gradient) and also slopes to the eastern boundary (4% gradient) and also a result of partial basement levels being provided within excavated areas on the site.

 

Notwithstanding the minor non-compliances with regards to number of storeys, the proposal meets the maximum external wall height and maximum building height controls outlined for the subject site; it is also consistent with the adjoining developments. The constructed and approved adjoining development at No. 4 Lister Ave (DA/885/2006) contains similar areas of non-compliance which exceed the maximum two storey limits; again this is a direct result of the steep fall in topography located along the northern side of Lister Ave.

 

It is considered that despite the minor non-compliance the proposal meets the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013, in that the building height relates to the topography and the subject streetscape and will not result in any adverse impacts on the adjoining properties amenity or the character of the area.

·      Privacy

The rear ground level balcony off Bedroom 1, will have the potential to directly overlook the adjoining properties living room, balconies and rear POS. To avoid the possibility of overlooking and mitigate any potential privacy impacts, a condition of consent has been recommended requiring 1.6m privacy screens be installed on the eastern and western edges of the balcony. It should be noted that these privacy screens will not result in any adverse impacts on view loss.

 

The proposal subject to recommended conditions is considered acceptable in that it will remain consistent with adjoining developments and the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

·      Front Fence

The proposed front fence has a maximum height of 1365mm; this exceeds the numerical control outlined in the RDCP 2013, which states that Solid front fences facing the street are to be no higher than 1.2m. In order to maintain consistency with the RDCP 2013 and the streetscape in which adjoining front fences have been reduced to 1200mm (DA/885/2006 – 4 Lister Ave), a condition has been recommended reducing the front fence to a maximum height of 1200mm.

 

The proposal subject to recommended conditions is considered acceptable in that it will remain consistent with the streetscape and the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 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 proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and does not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts upon the surrounding locality. The proposal remains within the bounds of the applicable State and Local planning framework.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached 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 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/219/2015 for construction of a new part 2, part 3 storey dwelling house with roof terrace, rear swimming pool, boundary fence, associated site and landscape works, at No. 6 Lister 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

 

          Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the eastern and western edges of the rear balcony located at ground level.  The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screens must not exceed 25% of the area of the screens.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.   The front wall on the street alignment shall have a maximum height of 1200mm.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 6 Lister Avenue, Little Bay

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP51/15

 

Subject:                  30-30A Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay (DA/550/2013/B)

Folder No:                   DA/550/2013/B

Author:                   Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of approved development by alteration to condition 56 to allow completion of landscaping within 3 months of issued of the Interim Occupancy Certificate. Original consent: Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Mr R G Folk

Owner:                        Mr R G Folk & Ms L E Kelly

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview69662.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The proposal was referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Proposal

 

Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy. 

 

This Section 96(1A) application seeks approval to modify the wording in Condition 56 to allow completion of landscaping within 3 months of issue of the Interim Occupation Certificate. 

 

Site

 

The site has been assessed as suitable for the approved residential development, which is currently under construction. The proposed modification would not result in any adverse impact to the surrounding area. Therefore, the site is considered suitable for the development (as modified).

 

Submissions

 

The proposal is considered minor in nature and no notifications were sent.

 

Key Issues

 

Condition No. 56 of the development consent requires the site to be landscaped in accordance with the approved Landscape Plan, prior to the issue of an occupation certificate. The applicant has advised that adherence to this condition may delay occupation, and result in additional financial burden as his family is currently renting another house. The applicant therefore seeks to modify the wording of Condition No. 56 to allow completion of landscaping within 3 months of issue of the interim occupation certificate.

 

The applicant also refers to the DIPNR Planning Circular PS 05-001 on the Department of Planning and Environment website, which provides Councils with advice on conditions of consent that relate to the issue of occupation certificates.  The Planning Circular states that a condition should not unnecessarily prevent occupation of a building to avoid potential delay resulting in economic loss i.e. preventing families moving into their new home.

 

Council is able to decide based on the individual circumstances, the conditions that might reasonably be satisfied after issue of an occupation certificate.  The Planning Circular also states that the full implementation of an approved landscape plan may be one of those matters that could be satisfied after the occupation certificate has been issued.

 

The applicant also provided the updated Landscape Plan with the application (submitted with the Construction Certificate), which is certified by a qualified horticulturist stating that it addresses all the relevant landscape conditions in the development consent.

 

The applicant’s modification request is therefore supported in this circumstance.

 

5.         Section 79C Assessment:

 

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

 


 

5.1      Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The proposal is not inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012. The proposal would not result in any adverse impacts to the amenity of surrounding residential development.

 

5.2    Development Control Plans

The proposal is consistent with the general aims and objectives of the Randwick Development Control Plan 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 modification remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted, and complies with the provisions of the Randwick LEP 2012, and Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The proposal would not result in any additional adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal is consistent with the DIPNR Circular PS 05-001, which provides flexibility in the application of conditions prior to issue of an occupation certificate to avoid financial burden, particularly for families seeking to occupy a new home.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council's as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Condition 56 in Development Consent No DA/550/2013/B to allow completion of landscaping within 3 months of the issue of the Interim Occupancy Certificate. Original consent: Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy for 30-30A Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay, in the following manner:

 

A.        Amend Condition 56 to read:

 

Prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate Within 3 months of issuing an Interim Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry (must be a registered member of AILDM, AILA or equivalent) must be submitted to, and be approved by the PCA, confirming that landscaping at this site has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan by Conzept Landscape Architects, dwg LPDA 14 – 2006716/1EF, issue EF dated 06/02/1423/05/14, and relevant conditions of consent, with the owners to implement strategies to ensure it is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP52/15

 

Subject:                  47 Boundary Street, Clovelly (DA/407/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/407/2015

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Installation of car space to front of dwelling

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Classic Plans

Owner:                        T & L Graham

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview69856.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council at the request of Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos and Nash.


 

1.      Proposal

 

The application proposes the construction of an elevated hard stand car space to the front of the dwelling. The car space has dimensions of 4.18m x 5.76m and includes an area for bin storage adjacent to the western boundary and entry steps to the dwelling. The application also includes a new timber picket style front fence.

 

2.      Site

 

The subject site is on the southern side of Boundary Street and has a site area of 424m², a frontage of 11.582m and depth of 36.575m. The land level at the front of the site is approximately 1.4m below the level of the footpath. On site at present there is a free standing single and two storey dwelling. (See figures 1 and 2)

 

Figure 1: Existing dwelling as viewed from the footpath

 

Figure 2: Side view of the dwelling from Boundary Street

The locality is wholly residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi-detached and free standing dwellings. 

 

3.      Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions have been received.

 

4.      Key Issues

 

Randwick Development Control Plan –Low Density Residential

Part 6 – Car Parking and Access

The location, size and configuration of parking and vehicular access have significant implications on building design and the streetscape character. In this regard it is important that parking facilities are properly integrated into the architecture of buildings and do not present as prominent or intrusive features.

 

The objectives of the DCP seek to ensure that car parking structures do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape and will be integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element.

 

The installation of the car space to the front of the dwelling will in this instance because of the elevated nature of the car space above the front yard of the site significantly detract from the streetscape presentation of the dwelling.

 

The existing view of the dwelling from the street is of a traditional cottage with a wide verandah across the front which is in very good condition. The car space including the perimeter safety fence will be sited up to the underside of the eaves to the dwelling and will significantly intrude upon and compromise the appearance of the dwelling from the street. The elevated car space will also remove direct solar access to the adjoining window at the front of the dwelling which could result in poor amenity to the building occupants within that corresponding room.

 

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 car space will not satisfy the objectives of the Randwick Development Control Plan with respect to Car Parking and Access and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority refuse development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No.407/2015 for the construction of a new hard stand car space at 47 Boundary Street Clovelly for the reasons as detailed below:

 

1.     The proposed development is inconsistent with the relevant objective of the R2 zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposal does not recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape.

 

2.     The proposed development does not satisfy the objectives of Part C1, Section 6 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 in that it will visually dominate the property frontage and streetscape and will not integrate with the architectural expression of the dwelling.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 47 Boundary Street, Clovelly

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP53/15

 

Subject:                  B501/102-106 Brook Street, Coogee
(DA/491/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/491/2015

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Installation of operable louvred roof system (vergola structure) on the existing terrace for unit B501 on the 5th floor

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Performance Building Consultants

Owner:                        The Owners - Strata Plan No. 70446

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview70110.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as there is a variation of Clause 4.3 Height of Buildings standard by more than 10%.


 

1.      Proposal

 

The proposal is for the installation of operable louvred roof system (vergola structure) on the existing terrace for unit B501 on the 5th floor.

 

2.      Site

 

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

 

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

 

Figure 1: Subject Site (proposed Vergola = red, existing approved vergola = green)

 

Figure 2: Proposed vergola (coloured).

 

Figure 3: Location of proposed vergola

 

3.      Site History

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·      On 9 June 2015 DA/134/2015 was approved at a planning committee meeting to install a new vergola structure above the existing terrace of Unit A401.

 

4.      Submissions

 

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

 

5.      Key Issues

 

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

 

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

 

Maximum Building Height Control

Clause 4.3(2) states that the maximum height of buildings on the subject site is 12m. The proposal is inclusive of building height of 14.525m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

 

4.3 (2)

Height of buildings

12m

14.525m

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

21% (3m) variation.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

·            The proposed vergola is an open structure,

·            No additional height to the building is proposed,

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

·            Consistent with the existing development,

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

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

 

·            The proposal does not exceed the maximum height of the existing building;

·            The proposed pergola follows the existing lines of the balcony and the resultant height does not exceed the height of the existing development. It is considered that the proposal will not result in a visually obtrusive or dominant element when viewing the development as a whole and will not adversely affect the original architectural character of the residential flat building;

·            It is not considered the proposed vergola will result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the immediately surrounding units and adjoining buildings in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views. The proposal will not detract from the aesthetic character, environmental qualities and social amenity of the subject site and the locality. In fact the vergola structure provides a privacy screen on the western elevation which will improve the amenity for the adjoining properties;

·            The proposed vergola will improve the amenity of the existing balcony as it will provide shade and increase the usability of the balcony;

·            The proposed vergola is not viewable from Brook Street or the foreshore area as it is set to the rear of the building. It is acknowledged that is viewable from surrounding streets to the north; however the vergola matches and is consistent with the approved and constructed vergola to the adjacent unit B502.

·            The proposed vergola is consistent with previous approvals; DA/102/2011, DA/134/2015.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

•   To protect the amenity of residents.

•   To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal involves the addition of a vergola over the balcony located at the top level of the existing residential flat building. The external modifications are considered to be consistent with similar structures within the existing development and maintain the architectural style of the approved development and are considered relatively minor.

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/491/2015 for the installation of an operable louvred roof system (vergola structure) on the existing terrace for unit B501 on the 5th floor, at No. B501/102-106 Brook Street, Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - B501/102-106 Brook Street, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP54/15

 

Subject:                  31 Pitt Street, Randwick (DA/373/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/373/2015

Author:                   Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations, ground and upper level addition to the existing semi-detached dwelling house including front hardstand car space

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr R J Foley

Owner:                        Mr R J Foley

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 


 

1.   Proposal

 

The proposal details alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including first floor addition and front hardstand car space.

 

Proposed changes to the subject dwelling consist of:

·      Reduction of size of existing bathroom and laundry, internal reconfiguration and rumpus room addition at lower ground level.

·      New elevated front hardstand car space, relocation of the entry door to the side with new elevated side passageway, demolition of chimney, internal reconfiguration, addition of a bathroom, extension of the living area and new elevated roofed deck at ground floor level.

·      First floor level addition comprising of 2 bedrooms, bathroom and balcony with retractable awning.

 

The application was required to further address the impact of the first floor addition and car space issues. Revised plans were renotified to the adjoining properties.

 

2.   Site

 

The subject site located on the eastern side of Pitt Street is legally described as Lot 111 in DP 1173340, No. 31 Pitt Street, Randwick. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, side boundary

46.125m

 

Southern, side boundary

47.245m

 

Eastern, Judge Street rear boundary

7.415m

 

Western, Pitt Street boundary

7.43m

 

 

 

342.9m2

 

The land sits below the street level at the front and has substantial fall from the street alignment to the rear of the premises, which slopes downwards from west to east and south to north with the lowest level being at the north eastern corner.

 

At present, the site is occupied by a single-storey semi-detached dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction with a lower ground level. The site adjoins to southern side with the identical pair of the semi-detached dwelling (No. 33 Pitt Street). On the northern side is predominantly a single-storey semi-detached dwelling with lower ground and basement level at the rear (No. 29 Pitt Street).

 

The locality is characterised by residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi-detached and freestanding dwellings and low rise residential flat buildings.   

 

  

Figure 1: View of subject site, 31 Pitt Street    Figure 2: Pair of semi-detached dwellings

 

3.   Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development and subsequent amended plans in accordance with Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Submissions were received from 29 and 33 Pitt Streets and 32 Milford Street, Randwick, as a result of the notification process. Key issues of the objections are summarised below to avoid repetitions.   

 

Issue

Comment

Proposed extensions do not fit into the current ambience of the street and will set future precedent. The proposal is unsympathetic, does not respect the symmetry of the pair of semis (pigeon pairs) and does not preserve character of the architectural period, which will create adverse visual impact on the street.

Refer to Part 4.3 of this report for further discussion.

Proposed upper level addition will overshadow the adjoining semi, which generally receives very little direct sunlight in winter. Further to that, sunlight provision to the rear yard of 32 Milford Street will also be adversely impacted together with the approval granted for 34 Milford Street

Shadow analysis complies with the DCP requirements. Due to the existing east to west orientation of the adjoining semi (33 Pitt Street), no north-facing living room windows will be impacted. Portion of its north-facing private open space, including area capable of supporting passive recreational activities, will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. Even though new residential flat building will be erected on the eastern side of 32 Milford Street, portion of its north-facing private open space and living room windows will also receive sufficient direct sunlight during the winter solstice.

Not enough space available for front hardstand car space.

Refer to Part 4.4 of this report for further discussion.

 

Additional issues affecting individual properties included in the submissions are also further delineated below.  

 

29 Pitt St, Randwick

Issue

Comment

Impact of proposed retaining wall on the side passage at the front.

Proposed elevated passageway above the retaining wall within the northern side passage will not compromise visual privacy of the objector’s property, as there is no window located directly opposite to the location of new entry door. Retaining wall is proposed within the subject site and suitable condition is to be included to ensure that the retaining wall will not encroach onto the adjoining property.

 

 

33 Pitt St, Randwick

32 Milford Street, Randwick

Issue

Comment

Acoustic and visual privacy impact from the proposed elevated decks and the impact will be amplified with the development approved at 34 Milford Street.

The siting of proposed decks is consistent with the location of decks at the adjoining properties. Thus, the acoustic impact from the proposed deck and balcony is not expected to exceed the noise generated from typical residential use. The size of first floor balcony is considered to be excessive and is subject to further discussion in Part 4.2 of this report. In urban context, complete privacy between the adjoining properties is often not achievable due to the existing land subdivision pattern. Visual privacy impact from the balcony could be minimised from the provision of privacy screen.

First floor addition unacceptably high at 9.5m. Large scale development that will tower over the neighbouring properties with dominating bulk and scale. Together with approved development at 34 Milford Street, the objectors’ properties will be hemmed by large dwellings.

The overall height of the addition complies with the DCP requirements. However, the perceivable bulk and scale from the proposal is subject to further discussion under Part 4.2 of this report.

Location of car space is unacceptable, as it will destroy frontage of semi and create harmful car fume to the adjoining semi. Possibility to access car space from Judge Street was investigated. Details of proposed guard rail are not provided with the application.

Refer to Part 4.4 of this report in relation to issues with the location of the car space. Harmful car fume impact to the adjoining properties could not be speculated, as there are existing parking spaces at each of the properties at Pitt Street, which are on-street and, or off-street. Given that the ground level of proposed hardstand car space will be raised on the southern side to match with the footpath level, Council’s Development Engineer requested that guard rail is to be provided to prevent the car passenger from falling into the large step down. Details of guard rail however are not provided by the applicant. Suitable condition is to be included to ensure that guard rail for the elevated hardstand car space will be installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Australian Standard.

Reduction in value of properties.

There are many varying aspects that could contribute to the ways a property is valued. Properties value also does not form part of the assessment under the requirements of Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. Therefore, reduction in properties value is not relevant with the assessment of this application.

 

4.   Key Issues

 

4.1 External Wall Height

Council’s DCP control for the maximum external wall height for the steeply sloping sites requires an external wall height of 8m. Although the plans indicated that the external wall height complies with the DCP requirement, the vertical distance as measured from the existing ground level to the topmost point of an external wall of the proposed first floor level addition on the south elevation plan is actually 8.3m. Variation to the height controls maybe acceptable having regard to the consideration of site topography, orientation and potential impact of the development. Further to that, the objectives of the DCP are also to ensure that the development is of a suitable scale and will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining properties. Even though non-compliance with the wall height will not visible from the street, however due to the steepness of the site, the proposed first floor level addition with the rear balcony having 1.8m high privacy screen to the length of 3.2m attached to it will contribute to the perceivable bulk and scale of the existing semi- dwelling. Therefore, the impact form and massing of the proposed addition is not favourable and the length of the rear addition should be reduced to minimise the non-compliant element and satisfy the objectives of Council’s DCP for external wall height.

 

4.2 Bulk and Scale

Council’s DCP General Building Design stipulates that the permissible building envelope is defined by site coverage, setbacks, FSR, overall building height and external wall height. The form and massing of development need to be modelled to respond specifically to the site characteristics and the surrounding natural and built context. The proposed first floor addition does not comply with the external wall height requirement. Moreover, the rear balcony will add to the perceivable bulk and scale, as the height of the side elevation measured from the existing natural ground level to the top of the proposed privacy screen is 9.4m. The first floor level addition with balcony having 1.8m high privacy screen are therefore considered to be inappropriate to the proportions of the building. The perceivable bulk and scale and the proportion of dwelling are un sympathetic to adaptation of the site characteristic in terms of topography, orientation and surrounding natural and built context. The proposed addition has not responded to the permissible building envelope and is therefore regarded unsatisfactory in meeting the objectives of the RCDCP 2013 for building design. Relevant condition is to be included within this report to reduce the size of the first floor addition and the rear balcony.

 

4.3 Additional Provision for Semi-Detached Dwellings

Council’s DCP controls for additional design provisions for semi-detached dwellings state that development must respect and enhance the architectural character of the pair of semi-detached dwellings as a coherent entity by ensuring that possible design solutions in relation to symmetry, location of first floor addition, character and finishing of expose party walls on the boundary are taken into consideration. The proposed development will significantly altered the front façade of the existing semi-detached dwelling by relocating the front entry door, extending the front awning, demolition of chimney and new front skylight. Proposed changes are regarded as suitable given that the symmetry of the adjoining pair of semi-detached dwelling has been altered by the construction of an attached garage to the front of the dwelling. The proposed siting of first floor addition that is not strictly positioned behind the ridge of the main roof will protrude approximately 1m in front of the ridge. However, most of the bulk of the addition will be contained behind the main hipped roof, which will not result in visual dominance of the addition. Party walls on the southern elevation at the rear will also be appropriately finished with face brick. Non-compliance with Council’s DCP controls for additional design provisions for semi-detached dwellings is considered as acceptable and will continue to satisfy the objectives of the DCP in that proposed alterations and additions complement the adjoining dwelling.       

 

4.4 Front Hardstand Car Space

Proposed front hardstand car space does not comply with Council’s DCP controls for its proposed location and length. However the location of hard stand car space is consistent with the existing parking facilities at the adjoining properties within the streetscape, which are dominated by carport and garage to the front of the dwelling. The proposed location of the car space is also compatible with the location of car parking facility at the adjoining semi and will not adversely impact the character of the semi-detached dwellings as a pair. Vehicular access could also be possibly provided from secondary street (Judge Street). Nonetheless, further tree removal within the site and on Council property would be required, as well as the construction of a new retaining walls within the site and also on Council property. Considering additional cost that may be required to undertake the works, it would be inappropriate to relocate car parking facility to the rear whilst the adjoining pair of semi already has a car parking facility to the front of the dwelling. Deficiency in the length of car space by 20mm on the northern side has been investigated by Council’s Development Engineer and is considered to be negligible as it only occurs on one side and the vehicle will be able to accommodate on the site without at protruding into the public domain (refer to Part 5 of DA Compliance Report). Proposed configuration of the car space is supported at its current form, subject to the attached conditions.

 

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 and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling satisfy Randwick LEP 2012 development standards for floor space and height and generally comply with the controls and objectives of Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The first floor addition is however unsympathetic to the architectural character of the other pair of existing semi-detached dwelling and would result in unacceptable perceivable bulk and scale. Subject to reducing the size of the first floor addition, the proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/373/2015 for alterations, ground and upper level addition to the existing semi-detached dwelling house including front hardstand car space, at No. 31 Pitt Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The proposed upper level addition shall be amended in the following manner:

 

1)  The rear upper level balcony shall be deleted.

 

2)  The rear upper level eastern wall to the bedroom shall be shifted west by 1m. A maximum 1m depth of balcony may be provided to the rear upper level adjacent to the repositioned bedroom wall.

 

b.     Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above the floor level shall be provided to both sides of the balcony with the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

c.     Privacy screens to both sides of the rear ground floor level deck must be reduced to the height of 1.6m above the floor level and must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

d.     Details of the proposed guard rail on the southern side of the front hardstand car space are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 31 Pitt Street, Randwick

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP55/15

 

Subject:                  38 Wentworth Street, Randwick (DA/367/2014/A)

Folder No:                   DA/367/2014/A

Author:                   Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the roof material of the studio over the garage and addition of a skylight, alterations to the windows on the northern, eastern and laneway elevations and addition of air-conditioning unit

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mr R Raso

Owner:                        Mr J R Haddock & Mrs T A Haddock

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview70442.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks to modify the original consent determined at the Planning Committee meeting of 9 September 2014.

 

The subject section 96 (2) application seeks approval to modify the approved development consent by altering the roof material of the studio over the garage and addition of a skylight, alterations to the windows on the northern and laneway elevations and addition of air-conditioning unit.

 

1.        Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks to amend the approved plans as follows:

 

Garage Level

§  New highlight window on the northern elevation.

 

Studio Level

§  Air-conditioning unit to southern elevation (screened by privacy screen);

§  Window changes facing the laneway (Western elevation); and

§  Window/door changes on the eastern elevation.

 

Roof

§  Reduction in overall height by 10mm;

§  Change roof material to zinc roof sheeting; and

§  Installation of a new skylight on southern roof pane.

 

2.        Site

 

The site is located in a low density R2 Zone under the RLEP 2012. The subject site is located on the eastern side of Wentworth Street, south of White Street, in Randwick and is presently occupied by an existing 2 storey dwelling house with rear lane access along Dangar Lane. The subject site has a regular rectangular shape and slopes slightly to the rear on a northerly aspect.

 

The subject site is rectangular in shape and has the following dimensions and land area:

 

 Boundary

Length

Land area

Eastern, Front Boundary

18.29m

 

 843.5m²

 

Northern, Side boundary

45.725m

Southern, Side boundary

45.725m

Western, Rear boundary

18.29m

 

Figure1. Subject Site

 

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by low density residential development and consists predominantly of detached single dwellings and semi-detached dwellings.

 

3.        Site History

 

DA/184/2011 was approved on the 18th August 2011 for alterations and additions, including a new upper level and minor internal alterations to the existing lower ground and ground floor levels. Proposed materials include brick veneer with cement render and paint finish, timber casement windows and concrete roof. The proposed first floor addition has been designed in accordance with the form and style of the existing dwelling.

 

A granny flat also formed part of the original application, however this was deleted as a satisfactory design that minimised impacts (overshadowing) on neighbours was not achieved. 

 

DA/396/2012 was approved on the 27th November 2012 for alterations and additions including a new upper level to the dwelling and to the existing garage, following the receipt of amended drawings which addressed a number of heritage concerns.  The application also included removing the early tennis court, relocating the swimming pool, and a number of changes at ground floor level. 

 

As part of the approval, a condition was included requiring the surrender of DA/184/2011 and all associated documents to Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

DA/396/2012/A, which proposed further changes at lower ground, upper ground and first floor level, as well as to the outbuilding and the swimming pool was approved in August 2013.  The upper floor addition was to be enlarged, reducing its setback from the front elevation, removing existing chimneys and amending the roof form.  Changes were proposed to the roof form of the granny flat. 

 

DA/396/2012/B, which proposed additional changes at lower ground, upper ground and first floor level, was approved in February 2014.  The application included extensive changes to external openings, and alterations to the original roof form.  The existing front verandah was also to be altered and extended along the northern side of the dwelling. 

 

DA/396/2012/C, which proposed to add a new roof over the walkway between the dwelling and rear garage was approved on the 19th August 2015.

 

DA/367/2014 was approved at a planning committee meeting on the 9th September 2014, for alterations and additions to the existing garage including construction of studio above garage.

 

4.        Submissions

 

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

 

5.        S96 Assessment

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted. The scope of modifications includes changes to the roof material, installation of a skylight, various window changes on the western, eastern and northern elevations and the installation of a new air-conditioning unit. The proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

6.        Referral

 

The proposal was referred to Council’s Heritage Planner, the following comments were made:

 

6.1.     Heritage Planner

 

The Site

The site is within the North Randwick heritage conservation area and is occupied by a detached cottage which has a single storey scale to Wentworth Street and a two storey scale to the rear.  The dwelling on the site has been subject to considerable change throughout its history, including additions to the front, side and rear.  The dwelling contributes to the heritage conservation area through its general scale and form.  Surrounding development is predominantly single storey, although there are several two storey buildings to the south, including the dwelling immediately adjacent to the site. 

 

Background

DA/184/2011- for alterations and additions including a new upper level to the dwelling and to the existing garage, approved in August 2011, following the receipt of amended drawings which addressed a number of heritage concerns.  This proposal retained the early tennis court on the site. 

 

DA/396/2012- for alterations and additions including a new upper level to the dwelling and to the existing garage, approved in November 2012, following the receipt of amended drawings which addressed a number of heritage concerns.  The application also included removing the early tennis court. 

 

A Section 96 application which proposed further changes at lower ground, upper ground and first floor level, as well as to the outbuilding and the swimming pool approved in August 2013.  The upper floor addition was to be enlarged, reducing its setback from the front elevation, removing existing chimneys and amending the roof form.  Changes were proposed to the roof form of the granny flat. 

 

A further Section 96 application which proposed additional changes at lower ground, upper ground and first floor level, was approved in February 2014.  The application included extensive changes to external openings, and alterations to the original roof form.  The existing front verandah was also to be altered and extended along the northern side of the dwelling. 

 

DA/367/2014- for design changes to the approved garage alterations and additions was approved by Council in September 2014. 

 

Proposal

The current application proposes design changes to the approved garage alterations and additions which comprise lower ground level garaging, an upper ground floor level granny flat, an L-shaped deck and a terrace.  Amendments comprise changes to proposed roof cladding, and changes to existing windows. 

 

Submission

The Statement of Environmental Effects notes that “attentions have been given to the design of roof structure and selection of materials in keeping with the surrounding area please see accompanying heritage impact statement to refer to.” (sic).  It is noted that no heritage impact statement has been submitted with the application.  The original application was accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Colin Brady which addressed heritage impact and provides mitigation measures.  As this Statement is not relevant as it does not address the heritage impacts of the current proposal. 

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(4) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 requires Council to consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned

 

In relation to Development in Laneways, the Area Specific Controls in Clause 8.1 of Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 includes Controls that all ancillary buildings fronting laneways must have a maximum height of not more than 6m and a maximum external wall height of 4.5m, and that any upper level (for instance storey above garage) must be contained within the roof form as an attic storey. 

 

Comments

 

In relation to proposed changes to proposed roof cladding, the SEE advises that the approved tiled roof is to be replaced with standing seam zinc sheeting.  The original drawings noted the roof material for the garage as CRS.  No description for CRS is provided in the Legend or Specification Schedule however, and no materials and finishes board has been submitted.  The steeper roof form of the main dwelling is to be clad in slate-like tiles.  The roof form of the proposed outbuilding will have reduced visibility due as its shallower pitch is two storeys above ground level.  

 

In relation to proposed changes to existing windows, the reduced number of windows may assist in reducing privacy impacts.  The building envelope of the outbuilding will not in any case be altered. 

Recommendation

A condition has been recommended requiring the colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the roof of the outbuilding be compatible with the existing building, surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area and consistent with the architectural style of the building. Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures are to be submitted to and approved by council prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

7.        Key Issues

 

Amenity

The subject section 96 (2) application proposes an air-conditioning unit 800mm off the southern boundary, the location of the proposed unit is directly adjacent to the adjoining property No. 40 Wentworth Street’s rear POS. It is considered that the air-conditioning unit will not result in any adverse acoustic impacts, notwithstanding this appropriate noise conditions have been recommended as part of this assessment.

 

Privacy

The proposed window changes on the northern, eastern and western elevations will not result in any adverse privacy impacts on the adjoining properties. The changes are considered minor and substantially the same as what was originally approved. The proposal meets the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013 with regards to visual privacy.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

Overall, the essence of the application is not changing and it complies with the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013. The proposal is considered suitable for the site, it satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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/367/2014/A to alter the roof material of the studio over the garage, the addition of a skylight, alterations to the windows on the northern, eastern and laneway elevations and addition of air-conditioning unit, at No. 38 Wentworth Street, Randwick, subject to the following conditions:

 

Conditions

 

·      Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

GHAD-87-12

Plan Ahead Designs

13/08/2014

13 August 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A191884

17 June 2014

18 June 2014

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

GHAD-142-14

Plan Ahead Designs

14/07/2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

A191884_02

13/07/2015

 

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

 

·      Amend condition 2(b) to read:

2b.     The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the roof of the outbuilding are to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area and consistent with the architectural style of the building.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) of the roof material are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

·      Add condition 43 to read:

 

          Air Conditioners

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

 

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

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP56/15

 

Subject:                  18-20 Cobham Street, Maroubra (DA/558/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/558/2015

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Subdivision of the existing lot containing an attached dual occupancy development into two Torrens Title allotments and construction of new front hardstand car spaces

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Archman Design Services

Owner:                        Mrs R Kornfeld

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview32451.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council as the proposed Torrens lot sizes have a shortfall greater than 10% to the 400sqm minimum lot size standard required for each lot under Clause 4.1(3) Minimum lot size of the RLEP 2012.

Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks to subdivide the land into two Torrens Title lots (including a hardstand car space in front of each lot) as follows:

 

·      Southern Lot = 312.58sqm and 7.89m frontage, rear width 6.423m.

·      Northern Lot = 300.77sqm and 4.91m frontage, rear width 6.423m.

 

Amended plan: The applicant was advised to reconfigure the hard stand carspaces closer together to allow for the retention of an additional on street parking space along the kerb side. The applicant submitted amended plans received by Council 7 October 2015.

 

Site

 

The site is on the western side of Cobham Street Maroubra between Kingsford Street to the north and Parer Street perpendicular and to the south. It has a 12.80m frontage, a 47.465m depth on southern side, a 48.545m length along the northern side and is 614.6sqm in area. There are semi-detached dwellings in the vicinity of the site and the surrounding area as shown in the cadastral image below. The local area is dominated by free-standing and semi-detached homes. The land is zoned R2 Low Density Residential in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012).

 

 

Cadastral image: Subject site shaded pink and surrounding allotments generally containing semi-detached dwellings on allotments of land that are similar in size to the proposed allotment sizes.

 


 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

1.      Minimum allotment size - subdivision

Clause 4.1 (3) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 states:

 

(3)  The size of any lot resulting from a subdivision of land to which this clause applies is not to be less than the minimum size shown on the Lot Size Map in relation to that land.

 

Pursuant to Clauses 4.1(3) of the RLEP, the minimum allotment size for subdivision of land zoned R2 zone is 400sqm per allotment and the proposal contravenes the standard as contained in clause 4.1 (3) of RLEP 2012. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Lot 1 – 20 Cobham Street

Lot 2 – 18 Cobham Street

Proposal

300.77sqm

312.58sqm

Variation

99.23sqm below the development standard equates to a 24.8% shortfall.

87.42sqm below the development standard equates to a 21.8% shortfall.

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard

 

2.      Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to vary development standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

(ii)    the proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the particular standard and the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out, 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 sub clause (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 minimum lot size standard are set out in clause 4.1(3) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

(a)     to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

 

(b)     to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

 

(c)      to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose.

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following key arguments for departure from the standard:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

It is considered that the justification submitted by the applicant substantiates that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case when assessed against the objectives of the standard as follows:

 

(a)    to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties,

 

The main objective for applying the minimum allotment size standard is to minimise any likely adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. There is no physical development sought other than that which has been erected on the site which is pre 1950’s and the subdivision will not result in any immediate adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring properties. In this respect, the proposed allotments containing the semi’s will maintain their existing layout which is similar to the layout of other properties in the surrounding area that also contain old semi-detached housing.

 

The built form alone is not sufficient to address the objective of protecting amenity of neighbouring properties in so far as the potential for adverse impact of subdivision and development on the amenity of the neighbouring properties must have regard to the broader context of the low density zone having particular regard to the spatial separation and density of developments. Council has undertaken reviews of the minimum lot size in 1998, 2005 & 2012 and deliberated the questions of site area and form of subdivision making well considered decisions on the minimum allotment sizes and on the potential outcomes resulting from the proposed development standards. These reviews reflect a detailed understanding of the nature of development throughout the area and the integrity of the decisions being made about the form of development that the Council and the community expect in order to achieve a desired level of local amenity as well as housing mix and choice.

 

Despite the proposed land sizes of both lots having significant shortfalls to the current standards, it is not uncommon for semis constructed in the early 1900s through to the 1960s to be sited on small sized lots with small frontages and for these to have been mostly subdivided around the late 1950’s and 1960’s. The historical nature of the existing semi-detached dwellings on the one lot distinguishes itself from the questions of minimum site area and the provision of attached dual occupancies on lots of 450sqm to increase housing choice and which are not permitted to be subdivided.

 

(b)    to ensure that lot sizes allow development to be sited to protect natural or cultural features, including heritage items, and to retain special features such as trees and views,

 

The proposed development will not affect any adjacent natural or cultural or special features associated with the site or surrounding developments.

 

(c)    to ensure that lot sizes are able to accommodate development that is suitable for its purpose.

 

The development standards for minimum allotment sizes are intended to maintain the existing character of the R2 zone and to ensure acceptable environmental outcomes from housing that are suitably located with access to services, transport, shops and the like, whilst minimising the impact on adjoining neighbours and maintaining or enhancing neighbourhood character.

 

As indicated earlier, although there are significant shortfalls to the current standards, the historical nature of the existing semis and the consistency in size of other separately titled old semis in the locality are indicative of the suitability of the lots for development.

 

In addition, Council’s DCP which complements the RLEP in terms of providing more detailed guidelines stipulates the following objectives in respect of subdivision in the R2 zone:

·           To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern in the locality.

·           To ensure land subdivision creates allotments that have adequate width and configuration, to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

Having regard to these objectives it is considered that the proposed lot sizes are of a similar size of immediately adjoining sites, and where sites are larger these contain single detached dwellings or more recent attached dual occupancies. Pertinent to this application, and as shown in cadastral and aerial photos above, those lots in the surrounding street networks that contain old semi-detached dwellings are in fact sited and configured on similarly sized lots (size and frontage) to those being sought as part of this application.

 

Overall, having regard to the applicant’s submission and the objectives for the minimum lot size standard and the R2 low density zone, it is considered that the proposed subdivision be both in terms of layout and building design respectful of the subdivision pattern in the locality and will not result in transformation of the R2 zone in the broader context. Therefore, the submitted exception to the development standard addresses the consistency of the proposed development with the objectives of the standard.

 

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

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the objectives of the standard, fits in with the subdivision layout and character of similar developments and is considered to be representative of the most orderly and economic use of the site.

 

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 minimum lot size standard. In relation to the objectives within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 - Low Density Residential) these read as follows:

 

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

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

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

•    To encourage housing affordability.

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is consistent with the zone objectives in that:

 

·      The amenity of residents will not be affected by any works associated with the subdivision

 

·      The proposed development is consistent with the separate tenure which exists on nearby properties similarly sized and configured semi-detached dwellings

 

·      The subject site has been separately rated for a significant period.

 

·      The proposed separate tenure will not cumulatively transform the character and density within the R2 zone in so far as the above-mentioned circumstances apply.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it represents the most orderly use of the site, it does not contravene the purpose of the standard, and it maintains the low density character of the area and therefore satisfies the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential zone and objectives of the minimum allotment size standard.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment 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 minimum allotment size  in clause 4.1 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the minimum lot size standard on this occasion is considered to be of benefit 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.

 

3.      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.

 


 

3.1      Section 2.1 Minimum lot size and frontage

The proposed development is subject to the DCP minimum 12m lot frontage control. The subject site has a frontage of 12.8m and the proposed development provides only 7.89mm and 4.91m frontages for Lot 1 and Lot 2 respectively.  An assessment against the following objectives is therefore required:

 

·      To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern of the locality.

 

·      To ensure land subdivision creates allotments that have adequate width and configuration, to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

Despite the proposed lots being well below the 12m minimum required for each allotment, the proposed frontages are generally consistent with the frontage widths of other allotment frontages in the vicinity.

 

Overall, characteristics such as the historical configuration of the development from street level and consistency with examples of older type semi-detached dwellings on similarly sized frontages both in the vicinity and the wider locale will not create any potential to transform the low density character of the locality.

 

3.2      Parking

Part B7 (Section 3.7 Parking & Service Delivery Requirements) and Part C1 (Section 6- Parking and Access) of the RDCP 2013 set out number of parking spaces required and hardstand design for the development respectively.

 

Parking requirements

Section 3 of Part B7 of the RDCP 2013 requires at least one space for each of the semi-detached dwellings. The proposed development provides one space for each of the two-bedroom semi-detached dwellings and complies.

 

Car parking and access

Section 6 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 complies with the design guidelines under the RDCP 2013. However, it is considered (as per Councils Development Engineer comments) that a better planning outcome would be achieved if the hardstand spaces were located side by side as this would achieve one less on street (curbside) parking space being lost than that resulting from the original configuration.

 

The amended scheme result in more uninterrupted hard surface area across the sites frontage than the original scheme, however it is not considered that this is detrimental to the development in so far as the hard surfaces across the front represents less than 50% of the sites frontage and there is ample room to include landscaping along the northern and southern sides of these parking spaces which will serve to soften the appearance of the hard surface areas from street level and within the streetscape. A condition is included to requiring landscaping to the northern and southern sides of the hardstand surface.

 

4.      Development engineering and Landscaping Officer comments

 

An amended application has been received for hardstand car spaces at the front of the existing dwellings and subdivision of the site into 2 Torrens title lots.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended car spaces plan by ArchmanBrown Designs dated 7th October 2015;

·      Proposed Subdivision Plan by Archman Design Services dated 31st June 2015.

·      Statement of Environmental Effects dated March 2010

 

Car space Comments

The carspaces comply with the minimum requirements of AS 2890.1:2004 in regards to size and grade.

 

On-street parking

Following issues raised on the loss of on-street parking spaces in email sent 2nd October 2015, the applicant has submitted an amended plan which re-positions the southern car space so that an on-street car space is maintained in front of the site.

 

The arrangement is now supportable to Development Engineering. 

 

Landscape Comments

The only vegetation affected by this application is the juvenile, 3m x 3m Cupaniopsis anacardioides (Tuckeroo) on the public verge, centrally across the width of the site, which is covered by the DCP, but is in direct conflict with the new centralized vehicle crossing in this same location, as shown on the amended dwg DA015/0015.

 

Due to its small size, as well as an ability to provide replacements on either side of the crossing, in line with each of the side boundaries at the completion of works, there will be no impact on the streetscape, with conditions requiring that this work be performed by Council, wholly at the applicants cost. 

 

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

 

This development application is referred to Council because there is an Exception to the RLEP development standards for minimum lot sizes that exceed 10%.

 

The site is on the western side of Cobham Street in, Maroubra. It has 12.80m frontage across the whole of the site, and the proposed lots are similar in size and frontages than those required under the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013. Despite this the applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6 exception to the Minimum allotment size standard under Clause 4.1(3) of the RLEP 2012 arguing successfully that it is unreasonable and unnecessary for the standard to apply. In this respect the proposed lots are similar to other lots in the vicinity as well as the configuration of the semi-detached dwellings located within these lots. Moreover, the historical nature of the semi-detached dwellings precedes Councils provision for attached dual occupancies on lots of 450sqm in order to increase housing choice and the minimum lot size standard of 400sqm for each lot. 

 

Overall, the application is accompanied by well-founded Exception to the development standard and the proposal will be compatible with the character of the subdivision pattern, and does not unacceptably impact on neighbouring dwellings or the surrounding area zoned R2 Low Density Residential.

 

Approval subject to conditions is recommended.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.1(3) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Minimum subdivision lot size, 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. 558/2015 for subdivision of the existing lot containing an attached dual occupancy development into two Torrens Title allotments and construction of new front hardstand car spaces at No. 18-20 Cobham Street, 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

2a.   The northern and southern sides of the amalgamated hardstand spaces shall incorporate a minimum width of 600mm landscaping along the full length of the hardstands.  

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report 18-20 Cobham Street, Maroubra

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP57/15

 

Subject:                  137 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/88/2014/A)

Folder No:                   DA/88/2014/A

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96(AA) modification of L&E Court approval by alterations to vehicle access ramp, basement layout, relocation of waste storage, provision of 5 storage rooms (level 2) & additional floor space for unit 3; construction of western 2nd floor exterior wall with a nil set back

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                MKD Architects

Owner:                        Ideal Coogee Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview32336.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This matter is reported to Council as the original consent was granted by the Land and Environment Court of NSW.

 

Background:

 

DA/88/2014       Application for erection of a part 4 and part 2 storey residential flat development containing 8 dwellings with associated parking and landscaping refused by Planning Committee on 12 August, 2014.

 

The matter was the subject of an appeal to the Land and Environment Court (L & E Court) and a conditional consent was granted by the court on 15 May, 2015 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 4 and part 2 storey multi-unit development in 2 building forms. The approved development comprises eight (8) units, parking for 13 vehicles at semi-basement and ground levels, associated landscaping and site works (variation to building height standard).

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for modification of Consent No. 88/2014 in the following terms:

 

·         Minor alterations to vehicle access ramp in relation to ramp width, grades and transitons.

·         Alterations to the basement layout basement layout to provide for relocation of waste storage and provision of 5 storage rooms on level 2 and bin storage areas on level 1.

·         An additional 73m2 of floor space for unit 3 by way of excavation and construction of western second floor exterior wall with a nil set back to Carrington Road.

 

Site

 

The site is a quadrilateral shaped allotment with a 13.41m frontage to Carrington Road, northern and southern side boundary setbacks of 59.18m and 63.36m respecitively and a total site area of 822m2.

 

The site is steeply sloping having a fall from Carrington over the length of the site and a cross fall of approximately 1.2m from north to south.

 

The site contains an older style 2 storey dwelling house with a pitched tiled roof.

 

Figure 1: Subject site viewed from Carrington Road.

 

To the north the site is adjoined by a renovated residential flat development  and to the south and east the site is bound by detached dwelling houses. The locality is occupied predominently by detached and semi-detached dwelling houses of a traditional built form with older and newer forms of residential flat development interspersed.

 


 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Substantially the Same Development:

Whilst the amendments are several in number, 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.

 

As such the application satisfies the requirements of section 96 (2) of the EP and A Act, 1979.

 

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

The applicant has submitted a new BASIX certificate. The plans have been checked with regard to this new certificate and they are consistent with the requirements indicated for DA stage. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP: BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy SEPP 65: Design Quality of Residential Flat Development.

 

The submitted application is affected by the provisions of the SEPP and was considered by the DRP at its July 2015 meeting.

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is now an application to modify a consent, following the approval of the DA, and the third time the Panel has reviewed a proposal for this site (previous reports in April and June 2014). There has also been a change of architects since the DA.

 

The Panel has visited the site and is familiar with the local area.

 

The proposal is for the demolition of an existing two storey brick unit building and construction of apartments over 5 storeys in a long building.  Accessed off a long ramp, basement car parking is provided including stackers.

 

This proposal transforms the large storage area previously proposed at Level 2 (which is a storey below Carrington Road) partly into residential space that enlarges the ground floor unit, making it into a 2 storey dwelling.

 

While the Panel has in principle no issues with the proposal, it recommends the following improvements;

 

·      the lower level bedrooms should have doors rather than just windows that open to the narrow courtyard on the northern side. This outdoor space should be on their title

 

Officer’s comment

Amended plans have been provided with doors to bedroom areas. The strata plan will likely be altered to provide for exclusive use of the associated outdoor area as complying development and is not a contentious issue for planning purposes.

 

·    the large store area at this level excavated below Carrington Road should be made as communal space, with garbage and storage uses. This may allow the basement excavation to be marginally reduced by reconfiguring the parking, keeping the excavation back from the Carrington Road frontage

 

Officer’s comment

A condition of consent is included in the recommendation requiring communal use of this area to provide for adequate basement storage areas for all units within the development. The reconfiguration of car parking has been investigated and is not feasible. A condition of consent is included in the consent to provide a minimum setback of 2.5m to this area from Carrington Road to ensure a robust landscaping arrangement at the front of the site as required by the terms of the original consent. This will have the effect of achieving the intentions of the panel in this regard.

 

·    the northern elevation needs to show the windows and doors proposed

 

Officer’s comment

Provided for in the amended plans.

 

·    the diversification of unit types in the development is supported

 

Officer’s comment

This diversification is also supported from a planning perspective.

 

·    ceiling fans should be included for all bedrooms

Officer’s comment

A condition of consent will be included to ensure this provision.

 

·    the walk-in-robe could have natural light and ventilation

 

Officer’s comment

Provided for in the amended plans.

 

There is a significant tree close to the street frontage that could possibly be retained if the extent of excavation is reduced.  This should be investigated.

 

Officer’s comment

The terms of the original consent did not require the retention of the tree at the front of the site and conditions are included in the original consent requiring the inclusion of a substantial specimen at the front of the site. This coupled with the setback of 2.5m to align with the courtyard area above will ensure sufficient deep soil planting is available at the front of the site.

 

The Panel has no issue with the use of stackers in the basement.

 

Officer’s comment

This arrangement was approved as part of the original consent.

 

The Panel does not need to see the application again, if the above issues are resolved to the satisfaction of the assessing planner.

 

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 development:

 

4.3 Maximum Floor Space Ratio

The proposed modifications will increase the approved floor space by 73m2 involving an increase in the size of unit 3 to comprise 2 levels and contain 3 bedrooms and rumpus room area over in comparison to the single level 2 bedroom unit approved.

 

The increase in floor area represents a FSR of 0.97:1 which is 7% above the maximum FSR for the site. Importantly:

 

·      Most of the additional floor area is effectively below ground level.

·      The proposed additional floor will not alter the overall bulk, scale and height of the approved development.

·      Will be only obtusely visible from Carrington Road and effectively screened from view from the adjoining property to the north by the dividing fence and retaining wall.

·      Will improve substantially the amenity of internal spaces within the enlarged unit 3.

 

As such no objection is raised to the increase in floor space.

 

It is noted that relevant L & E Court case law has established that section 96 applications do not require requests for departure under clause 4.6 of the RLEP provided the criteria under section 96 (2) of the E P and A Act, 1979 is satisfied in terms of resulting in a development that is substantially the same as that to which consent was granted.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Car Parking

The proposed modifications will increase the parking demand by 0.3 spaces by the increase from 2 to 3 bedrooms associated with the enlarged unit 3. This change is not considered significant and supported in the circumstances.

 

Development Engineer’s Comments:

Engineering comments have raised minor issues in relation to the driveway gradients, height clearance for car stackers, bicycle spaces and waste bins, all of which can be catered for by way of retained, altered or new conditions. The relevant detail is included in the recommendation.

 

5.2    Site Suitability

The proposed modifications do not alter the suitability of the site for the approved development.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The development as proposed to be modified is substantially the same as that to which consent was originally granted and will not have any adverse effects on the amenity of adjoining or surrounding properties. For that reason the application is supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 (AA) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/88/2014/A for permission to make alterations to vehicle access ramp, basement layout, relocation of waste storage, provision of 5 storage rooms on level 2 and additional floor space for unit 3 by construction of western second floor exterior wall with a nil set back. Land and Environment Court approval of Original: Demolish existing structures and construct a part four (4), part two(2) storey multi-unit development in two (2) building forms. The development comprises eight (8) units, parking for 13 vehicles at semi-basement and ground levels, associated landscaping and site works (variation to building height standard) for 137 Carrington Road, Coogee, in the following manner:

 

·              Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

·              The development must be implemented in accordance with the plans and supporting documentation listed below except where amended by other conditions of this consent:

 

 

 

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1315-DA001G Notes

 

Shed

 

21/01/2015

1315-DA002F Area Calculations

1315-DA003F Landscape Calculations

1315-DA011F Site Analysis Plan

1315-DA012G Site Plan

1315-DA013A Cut and Fill Diagram

1315-DA201F Level 1 Plan

1315-DA202F Level 2 Plan

1315-DA203F Level 3 Plan

1315-DA204F Level 4 Plan

1315-DA205F Level 5 Plan

1315-DA300F West Elevation

1315-DA301F East Elevation

1315-DA302F North Elevation

1315-DA303F South Elevation

1315-DA304F North Elevation (including boundary fence)

1315-DA305A south Elevation (including boundary fence)

1315-DA400F Long Section A-A

1315-DA401F Cross Section B-B & C-C

1315-DA590F Details Sheet

L01 – Issue DA02-

Design for living

Dec 14

L02 – Issue DA02

Dec 14

L03 – Issue DA03

Jan 15

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

El Efficient Living

No. 01 Thermal Comfort simulation

19/02/2014

 

The application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans:

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A-2.02 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

A-2.03 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

A-3.01 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

A-3.02 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

A-4.01 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

A-4.02 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

A-5.01 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

A-5.02 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

A-5.03 Rev C

MKD Architects

31/8/2015

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

 

530669M_04

24 June, 2015

 

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

 

·              Alter conditions 19 and 22 to read:

·              19.     The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall:

 

-     not exceed a grade of 1:20 (5%) fall from the back of the existing footpath adjacent to the kerb, at all points opposite, along the full site frontage.

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9399 0881.

 

22.     The first 2m of the internal driveway must not exceed a grade of 1 in 20 (5%) which shall be followed by another 2 m section at max grade of 1 in 8 (12.5%). The driveway may then steepen to 1 in 4 (25%) after this point. A longitudinal section of the driveway must be provided with the construction certificate plans, at a scale of 1:20 along the centre-line of the driveway demonstrating compliance with the Council issued alignment level at the property boundary, together with satisfactory ramp grades (including transitions) in accordance with the above requirements and Australian Standard 2890.1 (2004) to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

·              Add a new condition 95 be added to read:       

95.     Contracts for sale for the individual dwelling must include details of the available height clearance within the proposed Wohr Combilift carstacker system. This is so prospective purchasers are fully aware of the restricted height clearances.

 

Non-standard conditions

 

·              Add new conditions 2d., 2e. and 2f. to read:

2d.     The basement storage shown on level 2 attached to unit 3 is to be reduced in area so that the minimum setback to Carrington Road is approximately 2.5m to align with the westernmost extent of the proposed terrace to unit 3 at level 3 (A-2.03). This respective storage area is to be converted for use as storage for units 1 – 3 inclusive and ensure all units have basement storage. A amended layout plan must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager of Development Assessment prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

2e.     The bedrooms on level 2 of unit 3 are to show ceiling plans.

 

2f.      A minimum of 5 bicycle spaces shall be provided for this development in accordance with the requirements of Australian Standard 2890.3. Plans submitted for the construction certificate shall demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

              

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP58/15

 

Subject:                  66-68 Barker Street, Kingsford (DA/138/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/138/2015

Author:                   Mark Swain, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of all structures on site and construction of three storey boarding house development containing 39 self contained rooms, manager's residence, basement  car parking for 9 vehicles and 8 motorcycles and ancillary facilities (variation to building height control)

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Primus DMS Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Unitas Premier Holdings Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview33274.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is reported to Council as the estimated cost of development exceeds $2 million and includes a departure from a maximum height of buildings standard of greater than 10%.

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of all structures on site and construction of three storey boarding house development containing 39 self contained rooms, manager's residence, basement  car parking for 9 vehicles and 8 motorcycles and ancillary facilities.

 

As originally submitted, a number of issues were raised in relation to the following matters:

 

·      The visual and acoustic privacy interface between the proposed developemnt and the existing dwelling houses adjoining at 1 Forsyth Street and 64 Barker Street including likely noise levels from the communal areas at ground floor level.

·      The additional overshadowing impact caused by the non-compliant height component of the proposed development.

·      A number of design aspects raised by the Design Review Panel.

·      The requirement for more deep soil landscaping within the development particularly  adjacent to the Barker Street frontage and the southern boundary of the site.

·      A number of engineering concerns in relation to the driveway gradients, motorcycle parking and bin storage provision.

·      The need for a BASIX certificate having regard to the self contained nature of each of the proposed boarding rooms.

 

In response to the issues raised, plans have been amended to incorporate the following changes:

 

·      The vertical louvres have been deleted and replaced by a combination of opaque and high set clear windows to the southern elevation.

·      A setback to the southern boundary of approximately 700mm to the southern boundary at basement level.

·      Provision of an additional setback to the southern boundary of the southern communal area to a minimum of 2m and provision of an acoustic barrier to the western and southern edges of this area.

·      A slight reduction in the area of the southern communal area and increase in the size of the communal area adjacent to the Barker Street frontage.

·      Provision of an updated acoustic report validating the acceptability of the likely noise impacts associated with the use of common areas.

·      Additional deep soiled landscaping areas have been provided to the Barker Street frontage and adjacent to the southern boundary.

·      An amended basement plan layout with a revised provision in relation to driveway gradients, motor cycle parking and bin storage.

 

Additionally, the requested BASIX certificate and an amended section J report has been submitted.

 

This report has been prepared in relation to the amended plans and documentation.

 

Site

The site has a frontage of 35.09m to Barker Street, a depth of 20.115m including the western boundary frontage to Willis Lane and a total site area of 705.1m2.

 

To the west, south and east across Willis Lane the site adjoins detached dwelling houses. It is noted that the site at 3 Forsyth Street ( one site removed to the south of the subject site) a 3 storey Boarding house containing 18 rooms and manager’s residence is currently under construction. To the north across Barker Street are 4 are 5 storey buildings within the University of NSW. Further to the west in Barker Street are 3-4 storey residential flat buildings, detached dwellings and a student accommodation development of 5 storeys. The site is located within 400m of the Kingsford Town Centre and approximately 8km from the Sydney CBD.

 

The locality is occupied by a mix of residential and infrastructure type land uses of a built form and height comparable to and compatible with the proposed development.

 

Figure 1: Subject site.

 

Figure 2: Adjoining site to the west at 64 Barker Street.

Figure 3: Adjoining site to the east across Willis Lane.

Figure 4: Adjoining site to the south at 1 Forsyth Street showing outline of 3 storey boarding house under construction at No. 3 Forsyth Street.

Figure 5: View between 64 and 66 Barker Street showing profile of the 3 storey boarding house under construction at No. 3 Forsyth Street.

Figure 6: UNSW campus building diagonally opposite the subject site.

Figure 7: Streetscape looking west from in front of the subject site.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Request to vary development standard

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

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

 

Maximum Building Height

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal

11m.

Excess above RLEP Standard

15.8%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 FSR standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications in the main outline the following key arguments for the departure from the standard:

 

 

It is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and strict compliance with the maximum FSR is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

·      The bulk and scale of the proposed development is compliant with the applicable controls under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and results in a bulk and scale of development similar to those of developments within the immediate locality.

·      The height of the proposed development is commensurate with and or less than the height of buildings within the surrounding locality and will result in a built form compatible with the character of the local area.

·      The non-compliant height components of the proposed development with minor exception result in shadows cast on the roof areas of the dwelling house at No. 1 Forsyth Street such that the proposed development results in associated shadow impacts similar to those of a compliant form of development.

·      The topography of the site is such that compliance with the maximum height limit becomes more difficult to provide for a suitable floor plate for development within the site. The stepped design provides for a sound planning response having regard to the site constraints. The following images demonstrate the localised nature of the departure largely due to the slope of the site.

 

Figure 8: Barker Street elevation

Figure 9: Rear southern elevation.

 

·      The proposed development is well articulated and responds reasonably to the environmental and energy needs, indicative by way of compliance with the requirements of SEPP Building and Sustainability Index (BASIX) 2009.

·      The streetscape elevation submitted with the application demonstrates a form of development compatible with existing buildings in the streetscape.

·      The proposed development adequately takes account of impacts on adjoining properties in respect of visual bulk and loss of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because:

 

·      The proposal represents a variety of housing type in the locality within a medium density environment and that will serve the day to day needs of residents including UNSW students in the immediate locality.

 

·      The “Character of Local Area” comments addressed in this section of the report demonstrates that the proposed development is consistent with the desired future character having regard to the existing and likely built form in the locality.

 

·      The positive changes in the amended coupled with appropriate conditions of consent requiring further modifications will ensure that the proposed development will protect the amenity of existing residents whilst encouraging housing affordability.

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the medium density housing forms envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      1 Forsyth Street, Kingsford

Issues

Comments

Overshadowing impacts are excessive, result from a non-compliant design and do not take account of the overshadowing of the 3 storey boarding house currently under construction.

The solar access impacts associated with the proposed development are addressed under the heading of Solar access and Overshadowing in the key issues section of this report. The construction at No. 3 Forsyth Street is to the south of the proposed development and as such will cause minimal to negligible overshadowing impacts to the dwelling house on the objector’s property.

The privacy screens to the boarding rooms on the southern elevation are substantially open and do not provide for adequate privacy protection.

The privacy screens have been replaced with a simpler elevation incorporating a combination of opaque and high set clear windows to the southern elevation which will adequately ensure acceptable mutual levels of visual privacy.

Noise from proposed development particularly the southern communal area will be excessive is not adequately buffered to surrounding properties.

The proposed construction will be subject to the normal construction requirements of the BCA in terms of noise insulation of internal areas. In relation to the southern communal area, amended plans set this area back a minimum of 2m from the objector’s side boundary. An acoustic screen to the southern and western edges of this area as supported by an amended acoustic report will be incorporated this construction. Additionally a validation report demonstrating compliance with EPA noise limitations is required after 3 months of operation of the boarding house. A condition to this end is included in the recommendation.

Exhaust fumes from basement car park will cause significant risk to the health of occupants at No. 1 Forsyth Street.

The proposed development includes 3 vents from the basement car park adjacent to the rear yard area of 1 Forsyth Street which are separated by the proposed perimeter planting arrangements to the southern boundary. Given the low number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed development the generation of fumes is likely to have a negligible impact on the health of occupants at No 1 Forsyth Street or any other property. Standard conditions requiring compliance with controls under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act, 1997,   included in the recommendation, will allow for the taking of appropriate action in the extremely unlikely event that a nuisance is caused.

 

 

SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) in accordance with the provisions of the SEPP (as applied) as a formal Development Application.

 

The following is a reproduction of the recommendations received in relation to the development application with respective commentary:

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is a DA for a new Affordable Housing SEPP Boarding House, and the first time the Panel has seen a proposal for this site. The drawings were clear, adequately illustrating the design intent and scale, and therefore appropriate for this DA presentation.

 

The Panel is familiar with the site and the broader Barker Street / UNSW area.

 

1.            Relationship to the Context of the Proposal 

The site occupies the corner of Barker Street and Willis Lane, opposite UNSW. Busy Barker Street forms the northern frontage.

The site is well placed in relation to a range of public places and public transport, which is about to be further improved following the announcement of the tramline. Urban and site analyses have been prepared that provide a reasonable foundation for the site planning and distribution of building volumes and spaces.

The Panel considers that the overall form is a good response to this tight, highly urban site. This type of scheme will become more and more common, as housing affordability and the efficient use of urban land are major societal issues.

 

2.            The Scale of the Proposal

The Panel supports a number of aspects of the proposed Scale and Building Form;

 

-        The division of the block into 3 stepping parts is supported

-        Though spatially tight, the entry is clearly denoted

-        The Common Areas are conveniently located, and open to a rear terrace

-        The corridors have light and air at each end and in the middle

-        While challengingly small, the individual rooms are well planned

-        Due to the steep slope of Barker Street, sections of the roof in the middle and west end of the block break the height limit – the Panel considers this to be unavoidable on such as sloping site, and supports the massing. If anything, the building could be slightly lifted out of the ground, as the east end is rather too buried

-        5 of the rooms per floor benefit from windows in their side walls, allowing extra light and cross ventilation. The 2 corner southern units should also have windows to their bathrooms

-        The basement is compactly organized. While the driveway is well integrated with the form, the Panel suggests that the turning at the base of the driveway is too constrained and might be better splayed

 

The Panel considers that the following could be further refined and improved by design refinements;

 

-        The complex relationship along the site’s rear boundary to 1 Forsyth Street needs to be further investigated, due to the levels

 

         Officer’s comment

Amended plans have been submitted provided for a deep soil zone of 700mm at the rear southern boundary of the property which in conjunction with the proposed planter box arrangements will allow for effective screen planting. This combined with an additional setback to the communal area at this level and provision of acoustic fencing will allow for an acceptable visual and acoustic privacy interface taking due account of associated shadow impacts.

 

-        The various masonry fins and angled blades and projections make the upper 2 levels of the rear façade somewhat overworked, and unnecessarily limit daylight to the south facing rooms

 

Officer’s comment

Amended plans delete the vertical privacy screens and incorporate high set windows which simplify the external appearance of this elevation whilst allowing for adequate ingress of day and ambient light.

 

-        The communal terrace is likely to need solid screening to limit noise and overlooking to the neighbouring house

 

Officer’s comment

The amended plans are accompanied by an acoustic report which advocates provision of acoustic fencing along the western and southern edges to the southern communal area which has been setback additionally from the southern boundary to 2m.

 

-        The front units at the eastern end are too sunken below street level (see above)

 

Officer’s comment

Computer modeling was presented at a meeting with Council officers demonstrating that notwithstanding the sunken level of the 2 easternmost boarding rooms, each will receive acceptable levels of sunlight. Any raising of the floor levels in this regard would further increase the height of the proposed development which, given the east west orientation of the allotment, would have unacceptable associated overshadowing impacts on surrounding properties.

 

-        The lift is too close to the front door, and might be better rotated? Or the front door moved out slightly.

 

Officer’s comment

The entry door has been moved to the north and a glazed panel provided adjacent to the door, to provide a sense of space and increased ingress of northern light.

 

-        Could the fire stair be configured as a more open stair, with slot windows facing north and hold open device to the door?

 

Officer’s comment

The BCA report which accompanies the application clarifies the requirement for the stairwell to be fire isolated and as such it cannot be open.

 

-           A little more space could be provided around the stair landing in the central corridor

 

Officer’s comment

The amended plans which provide for the northern glazing to the entry door will provide for a net increase in floor space in this area and provide for improved natural light ingress.

 

-           All top floor bathrooms should have ventilating skylights

Officer’s comment

 

Amended plans include skylights to living areas of the uppermost level and the provision of ventilating skylights is catered for by way of an appropriate condition included in the recommendation.

 

3.            The Built Form of the Proposal

 

See comments above

 

4.            The Proposed Density

 

The redevelopment of such a well-located site is welcome, and the Panel considers that the density is suited to this site.

 

However any argument for additional density should be supported by design quality, and good amenity for all dwellings. The current design has the potential to meet this criterion.

 

5.            Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

 

Good passive solar design and environmental principles should inform the design. 

Most of the units are single orientation, and so need small design adjustments to improve their performance.

 

The Panel believes that a combination of BCA advice, better use of light and air from the open lobbies and the like should be used to guarantee of the units’ effective cross-ventilation. Randwick LGA benefits from the sea breeze, so cross ventilation should obviate the need for air-conditioning. In this regard the adjustments to the footprint, south-side openings and section could subtly improve the environmental performance.

 

Ceiling fans have been sensibly provided for each bedroom and clearly shown on the plans. 

 

Window operation should be clearly marked on all windows on the elevations – including any fanlight, service room and clerestorey windows (preferred to skylights). All units should have windows that can be secure, open-able and weather-sheltered to allow cross ventilation at night or when the apartment is not occupied.

 

The opportunity for added light, ventilation and winter sun through the roof by utilizing clerestory windows should be considered. Light and air can be achieved in this way without the problems of noise and privacy issues.

 

Officer’s comment

The amended plans incorporate skylights to the uppermost level and clerestory window inclusion to common areas. Additional requirements for ventilated skylights to the uppermost floor bathrooms included as a requirement in the recommendation, over and above an otherwise appropriate fenestration arrangement, will provide for an acceptable optimization of energy efficiency.

 

6.            The Proposed Landscape

A satisfactory landscape design by a recognized landscape architect has been provided with the DA. While little landscape space is available, a good level of detail has been provided.

 

7.            The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

The proposed planning is clear and generally well organized.

The Panel raises the following issues with the current arrangement;

-       more use could be made of the roof section for the benefit of the upper apartments

-       the rear façade could be less convoluted and more generous in its openings

-       the east facing windows could be more generous

 

Officer’s comment

Adequate improvements as discussed above are incorporated into the design including larger window openings to the eastern elevation.

Furniture layouts and room dimensions have been shown throughout.

In the detailed design, providing each unit with more light, a range of openings and weather shelter is important.

 

8.            The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

The proposal provides good surveillance of the street. The entry paths are clearly arranged, with reasonable address and way-finding.

As noted above, the internal arrangement is complex and BCA advice has been sought and incorporated into the design. The area and position of various essential services such as fire valves, exhausts from retail kitchens and the FIP need to be accommodated.

 

9.         Social issues

The intensification of such well-placed sites is socially beneficial. This is an ideal site for a boarding house / student accommodation.

 

10.          The Aesthetics of the Proposal

The proposal has the potential to be a fine addition to Kingsford, and to become a model for future compact studio apartments / student housing.

 

The Panel considers that the design is slightly over-wrought, and could be simplified. In particular the rear façade has too many elements, when the window design is key. The street façade has a double up of horizontal elements. The façade could be improved with the redundant elements removed. The need for daylight and framed outlook, while retaining privacy and limiting overshadowing are the major considerations.

 

The Panel emphasizes that medium density residential buildings should be designed and built with robust materials and an enduring character. 1:50 part elevations / sections and showing colours and materials are part of the DA drawing set to provide certainty. The materials, colour and scale have been considered. The operation of all screens and balustrades needs to be detailed.

 

Officer’s comment

A condition of consent to this end is included in the recommendation.

 

The amended plans have adequately addressed the concerns identified by the DRP are supported from a design perspective.

 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This proposal has merit, with scope for further improvement through design refinements suggested in this report.

 

The Panel does not need to see this application, when the above issues have been addressed and additional detailed design investigated to the satisfaction of the assessing planner.

 

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

Character of Local Area

The consent authority is required to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

Context:

The site has a frontage of 35.09m to Barker Street, a depth of 20.115m including the western boundary frontage to Willis Lane and a total site area of 705.1m2.

 

To the west, south and east across Willis Lane the site adjoins detached dwelling houses. It is noted that the site at 3 Forsyth Street (one site removed to the south of the subject site) a 3 storey Boarding house containing 18 rooms and manager’s residence is currently under construction. To the north across Barker Street are 4 are 5 storey buildings within the University of NSW. Further to the west in Barker Street are 3-4 storey residential flat buildings, detached dwellings and a student accommodation development of 5 storeys. The site is located within 400m of the Kingsford Town Centre and approximately 8km from the Sydney CBD.

 

The locality is occupied by a mix of residential and infrastructure type land uses of a built form and height comparable to and compatible with the proposed development.

 

The following image demonstrates the zoning context.

 

Zoning context

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview75540.png

 

Figure 10: Zoning Map

Compatibility of built form:

When viewed from Barker Street and surrounding properties the development will read as a 3 storey building stepped in 2 pavilions of a well-articulated and attractive built form. Notwithstanding the non-compliance with the maximum allowable height limit under the RLEP of 9.5m which is addressed in the key issues of the executive summary the surrounding permissible built from allows for the following building heights:

 

·      18m -24m immediately opposite the site within the University of NSW campus.

·      9.5m immediately to the west and south. 

·      24m along Anzac Parade further to the west within the Kingsford Town centre and

·      12m to the south commencing on the southern side of Middle Street, one block removed from the subject site.

 

Within this context, the proposed development is entirely compatible. Importantly, it is also noted that the proposed development will not isolate the properties at either 64 Barker Street or 1 Forsyth Street in terms of potential to accommodate future forms of permissible development.

 

The following image demonstrates the appropriate presentation of the proposed development to Barker Street.

 

Figure 11: Photomontage of proposed development as presented to Barker Street.

 

Compatibility of use:

The proposed use of the site, which comprises boarding house with 39 rooms, a manager’s residence and communal facilities, parking and landscaping constitutes a permissible form of development. Effective measures in relation to operation and management of the boarding house have been employed in a Plan of Management. These measures are recommended for enforcement by way of an appropriate condition of consent will ensure that the development results in sustainable amenity impacts to adjoining residents. The proposed development will provide contemporary affordable housing to the community in an ideal location opposite the University of NSW and within close proximity to public transport, infrastructure facilities including the POW hospital and commercial centres integrating effectively into the evolving character of the locality.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Residential R3 zone;

The proposal is clearly consistent with the objectives of the zone, detailed as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The physical impacts on surrounding properties detailed in the executive summary and the DCP section of this report are assessed as acceptable. Furthermore the appearance of the proposed development will be in harmony with the evolving nature of the streetscape.

 

The local character test is satisfied on this occasion.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

Clause 2.3 of the DCP provides that:

 

Any proposals seeking to vary the numerical controls will be assessed against the following criteria:

 

i)        Consistency with the general objectives of the LEP, and the general objectives and specific control objectives of this DCP.

ii)       The degree or numerical extent of variation from the control.

iii)      The presence of any existing site constraints rendering strict compliance difficult to achieve, such as:

 

·      Site topography

·      Site orientation

·      Allotment configuration

·      Allotment dimensions

·      Existing building structures to be retained

 

iv)      Potential impacts on the structural stability, visual amenity, solar access, privacy and views of the adjoining properties as a result of the variation.

v)       Potential impacts on the public domain in terms of streetscape character, views and vistas and pedestrian amenity.

vi)      Whether strict compliance with the controls will or will not permit construction of a building with reasonable dimensions, internal amenity, open space provision and architectural character.

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The general objectives of the DCP in respect to Visual and Acoustic privacy are:

 

 

 

Visual Privacy

·      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.

 

Acoustic Privacy

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

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

·      To ensure dwellings are designed to minimise impacts from significant exterior noise sources such as arterial roads, flight paths, industries and ports.

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

 

The layout of all north facing boarding rooms will have an excellent outlook to the north over the respective section of the UNSW campus.

 

As mentioned in the proposal section of this report, the plans as originally submitted raised a number of visual and acoustic privacy issues which have been adequately attended to in the amended plans by the inclusion of the following:

 

·      The southern elevation has been amended to incorporate a combination of opaque and high set clear windows with a sill height of 1.65m above floor level, which will ensure an adequate visual privacy interface with the properties to the west and south at No. 1 Forsyth Street and 64 Barker Street respectively.

·      The communal area to the south has been setback additionally to a minimum of 2m from the southern boundary adjacent to living areas of No. 1 Forsyth Street and will incorporate acoustic fencing to this boundary. This arrangement has been endorsed in an amended acoustic report and a condition is included in the recommendation requiring detail in this regard based on predicted noise levels from this area. Furthermore a validation report after 3 months of operation is required to ensure noise levels are compliant with the relevant limitations.

·      The use of this area will be prohibited between 10.00pm and 7.00am under the plan of management.

·      With regard to the south facing boarding rooms a 700mm wide landscaped strip to the southern boundary and has been incorporated to facilitate perimeter planting to this boundary. Also a condition of consent is included in the recommendation to require the provision of 1.6m privacy screens to the southern edges of the ground floor courtyards.

 

The above measures will ensure acceptable mutual levels of visual and acoustic privacy between the proposed development and surrounding properties.

 

Solar Access and overshadowing

Whilst the DCP does not contain specific controls in relation to solar access and overshadowing impacts for boarding houses, the objectives and controls from C2 - Medium Density Residential development provide a suitable guide in this regard:

 

·      To ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximises solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces, and is encouraged to all other areas of the development.

·      To ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

·      To provide adequate ambient lighting and minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

 

The controls with respect to surrounding properties require that part of a window to living areas and at least 50% of private open space areas receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8.00am and 4.00pm on June 21.

 

Whilst the proposed development achieves compliance with the above criteria in relation to the adjoining dwelling house to the west at 64 Barker Street, the proposal does not achieve strict compliance in relation to 1 rear living room window at 1st floor level or the rear private open space area.

 

Notwithstanding the departure from the above guide, the proposed impacts are considered acceptable in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

·      The east west orientation of the site at 1 Forsyth Street will result in an inevitable amount of overshadowing for any compliant form of development to the north.

·      Shadow diagrams submitted with the amended plans demonstrate that the additional shadows cast by the non-compliant components of the development fall mainly onto roof areas during the winter solstice.

·      The setback of 5m to the rear boundary having regard to the depth of the property of only 20.115m is generous in the circumstances and will allow for good levels of physical separation and ingress of natural light to the dwelling house at 1 Forsyth Street.

·      The proposed development complies with the FSR controls allowable under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and generally satisfies the requirements of Council’s DCP controls, indicative of an acceptable form of development on the site compatible with surrounding development and the local character of the area.

·      The height non-compliance is largely due to a combination of the difficult topography, orientation and dimensions of the site and such constraints severely limit the ability to carry out a reasonable form of development on the site. It is further noted that the non-compliant component of the uppermost floor represents approximately 12% of the total volume of this floor.

 

The impacts are assessed as acceptable in the circumstances.

 

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 generally satisfies the requirements of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Council’s LEP and DCP controls. Departures where evident have been justified in the body of this report.

 

The proposed boarding house will facilitate a much needed form of development in an ideal location and is supported.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 138/2015 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of three storey boarding house development containing 39 self-contained rooms, a manager's residence, basement  car parking for 9 vehicles and 8 motorcycles and ancillary facilities (variation to building height control) at No. 66–68 Barker Street, Kingsford subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

2.     The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a.     An acoustic and visual privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above floor level must be provided to the southern and western edges of the southern communal area adjacent to No. 1 Forsyth Street. The screen above the concrete planter box height must be constructed metal, timber or other opaque material and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Alternatively, the screen may be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.     Privacy screens having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the southern edges of the courtyard areas to boarding rooms 4-9 inclusive. The screen above the concrete planter box height must be constructed metal, timber or other opaque material and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Alternatively, the screen may be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

c.      The sill height of all clear window openings to south facing boarding rooms at first and second floor levels shall be 1.65m above the respective floor levels.

 

Plans detailing the compliance with the requirements of conditions 2 a – c inclusive are to be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to issue of the construction certificate.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 66-68 Barker Street, Kingsford

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP59/15

 

Subject:                  65 Boyce Road, Maroubra (DA/765/2014/A)

Folder No:                   DA/765/2014/A

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Modification pursuant to Section 96(2) to delete condition 2 of the original consent. Condition 2 requires the deletion of the originally proposed single carport within the front of the site

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                David Kom

Owner:                        David Kom

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes a modification to Section 96(2) to delete condition 2 of the original consent. Condition 2 requires the deletion of the originally proposed single carport within the front of the site.

Condition 2 currently reads:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

 

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

 

The proposed carport does not satisfy the objectives and controls of the     Randwick Development Control Plan – Low Density Residential, Part 6, car parking and access and is to be deleted from the proposal.”

 

The applicant proposes the same single carport over the site’s existing parking pad as proposed within the original application. The carport is proposed to have a width of 4.4m (including eaves), a length of 6m and a height of 3.7m. It is also proposed for the carport to have a gabled roof with a pitch and gable-end to reflect the gable roof forms of the existing dwelling. The front of the carport is proposed to be supported by two brick piers and the rear of is proposed to be attached to the front of the dwelling. The sides and front of the carport are proposed to be open. The carport is to be set back 400mm from the front boundary and 849mm from the western side boundary.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Boyce Road, close to its intersection with Hannan Street. This section of Boyce Road can be classified as a local residential street, it features on-street parking, grassed nature strips and some street trees. The streetscape features a variety of single and double storied residential dwellings from the mid-20th Century and post-war period. Sites along the street generally have narrow widths and as a result, parking pads and carports are present in front of a small minority of dwellings along the street.

 

The subject site contains a single-storey bungalow-style dwellings from the early-to-mid-20th Century (refer fig. 1 below). The dwelling features a main gabled roof and a smaller gable-roofed bay to the front. The dwelling mostly utilises the width of the 10.06m wide site, and so no parking opportunities are present to the rear of the front façade of the dwelling. A paved single-parking pad is located in the east of the site’s front yard and this paving extends into the west of the front yard. The parking pad is accessed by a 5.2m wide vehicle crossing off the street.

 

P2160015

Figure 1. The subject site and dwelling (left of photo). The existing parking pad and paving can be seen within the front of the site.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive RCDCP 2013 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 have been complied with:

 

1.    Substantially the Same Development

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development and for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 it is considered that the application remains substantially within scope of the original development.

 

2.    Notification and Submissions

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

 

Key Issues - Section 79C Assessment

 

Carport – Non-compliances with the RCPCP 2013

The carport is proposed to have the same design and dimensions as that originally proposed.

 

It is noted that at present there is an existing hard stand car space within the front of the site which provides a single parking space with direct access off Boyce Road via the existing driveway crossing. The existing car space satisfies the minimum dimensions of the RCDCP 2013 for parking spaces.

 

Sub-section 6.1 of the RCDCP 2013 allows for the provision of a single width garage or carport facing the primary street if the street frontage has a width of less than 12m. The frontage width of the subject site is 10.06m and therefore a carport may be considered.

 

Sub-sections 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6 of the RCDCP 2013 provides controls with respect to the location and design of parking facilities and where parking facilities forward of the front façade alignment may be considered.

 

In relation to the controls, the proposed carport would result in the following non-compliances:

 

-       With respect to Sub-section 6.2, the carport is proposed on a site which has a slope does not elevate the dwelling above street level, the proposed width of 4.4m will exceed the 3m maximum external width, and the carport will adversely affect the visual amenity of the street.

 

-       With respect to Sub-section 6.3 (and Sub-section 3.3), the proposed carport is to be situated 849mm (excluding eaves) from the site’s eastern side boundary and will not comply with the 900mm setback required by Sub-section 3.3.

 

-       With respect to Sub-section 6.6, the proposed height of 3.7m will exceed the 3m maximum height, the proposed length of 6m will exceed the 5.4m maximum, and the proposed width of 4.4m will exceed the 3m maximum.

 

The relevant objectives for Parking and Access under the RCDCP 2013 include the following:

 

·        To ensure car parking and access facilities do not visually dominate the property frontage or streetscape.

·        To ensure parking facilities are integrated with the architectural expression of the dwelling as an integrated element.

·        To minimise hard paved surfaces occupied by driveways and parking facilities, and maximise opportunities for deep soil planting and permeable surfaces for stormwater infiltration.

·        To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not pose undue safety risks on building occupants and pedestrians.

·        To ensure the location and design of parking and access facilities do not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties

 

Within the original DA assessment, the carport was considered to be inconsistent with the aforementioned objectives. The applicant has made no design changes or significant further justification for the carport, beyond an argument that there are other carports and garages in along the Boyce Road.

 

It is still considered that the carport, as proposed, does not satisfy the aforementioned objectives and will result in adverse environmental impacts.

 

Just a small minority of sites along Boyce Road contain garaging or carports in front of the dwelling (refer fig. 2 below), this scattering of garages/carports cannot be considered to be the predominate character of the area. Further, it is highlighted that these carports/garages were established under old RDCP controls. Therefore, the proposed carport is not in keeping with the established character.

 

Streetscape amenity and passive street surveillance would be adversely impacted as the dwelling of the subject site does not sit at a level higher than street level. As a result, the proposed carport would block views of the dwelling from the street, obscure architectural features of the dwelling (including a window), restrict the interaction between the dwelling and street, and the carport would present as the dominant visual feature of the subject site.  

 

Further, the proposal does not meet carport dimensional requirements of the RCDP 2013. The proposed carport is unnecessarily wide for a single vehicle, and a high and visually dominant front façade is proposed. Further, the proposed carport will unnecessarily infringe a side-setback control.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 2. Aerial photo showing part of Boyce Road and the subject site. Properties which feature garaging or carports to their frontages are marked with a blue star.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed carport will generate significant adverse impacts on the amenity and character of the surrounding area. It is also considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 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 modification to the existing development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP and Council policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in development that is substantially the same nature as previously approved works. The modified development will result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to delete condition 2 of the original Development Consent No DA/765/2014/A for 65 Boyce Road, Maroubra for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed carport does not satisfy the objectives of Section C1 in relation to carparking as it is inconsistent with the predominant character of the streetscape and will visually dominate the property frontage.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP60/15

 

Subject:                  19-21 Lister Avenue, Little Bay (DA/840/2007/E)

Folder No:                   DA/840/2007/E

Author:                   Gabrielle Coleman, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Integrated Development - Section 96 modification of approved development by altering the existing boundary fence design and retrospective approval for the air conditioning units. Original consent: Refurbishment and adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings to create 3 dwellings, construction of 8 x 2 storey town houses, basement car parking for 17 vehicles, associated earth works & landscaping (Heritage Item and Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Ace Body Corporate Management

Owner:                        Stockland Development (Phh) Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

It is proposed to remove two sections of the existing southern boundary fence. The remaining fence structure is to be reclad on both sides with fibre cement sheeting (blueboard) and fibre casement capping. 

 

The proposal also seeks retrospective approval for 10 existing air conditioning units that were installed without consent.

 

Site

The subject site is located at 19-21 Lister Avenue, Little Bay on the eastern end of the Prince Henry site and is legally described as Lot 29 in DP 270427. The subject site contains a heritage item known as the Institute of Tropical Medicine complex.

 

The subject site is irregular in shape and has frontages to Pavilion Drive of approximately 49.5m and Lister Avenue of approximately 47.4m, a northern boundary to Lot 28 and southern boundary to Lot 30, both approved for multi-unit housing development. The land slopes gently (about 5%) from west to east. There is a sandstone retaining wall in the north western corner of the site, extending into Lot 28.

Figure 2 : Aerial view of subject site.

 

Site History

 

The subject site forms part of the Prince Henry redevelopment site and comprises Lot 29 DP 270427. The original development (DA/840/2007) was approved by Council at its meeting on 12 February 2008 and comprises the refurbishment and adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings to create 3 dwellings, construction of 8 x 2 storey townhouses, basement carparking for 17 vehicles, associated earthworks & landscaping. 

 

Subsequent section 96 applications were approved for the reconfiguration of basement and above ground layouts. A further section 96 application (DA/840/2007/D) was received relating to removing a section of the southern boundary fence and reconstruct the remaining fence to be 50% transparent. This application was refused at council because the fence did not meet the relevant objectives of Clause 5.10 of the RLEP 2012 and the relevant planning controls in the Prince Henry Site DCP 2013 relating to fences. The subject section 96 application seeks to approval for a new outcome to the southern boundary fence, as well as retrospective approval for the existing air conditioning units.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

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:

The Section 96 modification involves modifications to the side fence and retrospective approval for the existing air conditioning units. These minor modifications do not substantially alter what was originally approved.

 

Randwick LEP 2012:

 

Zone Objectives   R1 – General Residential:

The subject site is zoned R1 – General Residential under the Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal relates to fencing that has been installed to the southern property boundary of the subject site. Generally fences are permissible within the zone.

 

The objectives of the zone relate primarily to the provision of the housing needs of the community. It is considered that the approved development, that includes multi-unit housing, is consistent with these objectives.

 

Clause 5.10 – Heritage conservation:

The subject site is listed as a State heritage item under the RLEP 2012 and is also within a Heritage Conservation Area. Both the heritage item and the Heritage Conservation Area are known collectively as the Prince Henry Hospital.

 

Council as the consent authority must, before granting consent with respect to a heritage item or heritage conservation area, consider the effect of the proposed development on the heritage significance of the item or area concerned. The applicant is required to prepare a heritage management document under the cover of an application to Council; that assesses the extent to which the carrying out of the proposed development would affect the heritage significance of the heritage item or heritage conservation area concerned.

 

It is noted that he applicant has not submitted a statement addressing the impact of the proposed development on the primary values of the heritage items or heritage conservation area. The Statement of Environmental Effects includes no discussion relating to heritage significance.

 

Nonetheless, proposal seeks to remedy the non-compliance of the existing fence by providing a solution that will uphold the cultural value of the Prince Henry Hospital Site. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will not result in any adverse impacts on the heritage significance of the site.

 

Clause 6.7 Foreshore scenic protection area

Clause 6.7(3) of RLEP 2012 specifies that development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas; and that the development contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

It is considered that the proposal to remove sections of the fence is an appropriate design to minimise its visual impact on Lister Avenue and Pavillion Drive. The fence will also be finished with appropriate materials to match the existing structures on site. This integrated outcome will visually improve the view of the existing site from the street and positively contribute to the coastal foreshore.

 

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Prince Henry Site, Little Bay:

 

Fences

The fence comprises a side dividing fence, constructed using ‘lap and cap’ style paling materials. The fence that has been constructed at a height of 1.8m (compliant with the relevant planning controls) and does not taper to match the height of the front fence once it extends beyond the front façade alignment. Having said this, the applicant proposes to remove that part of the fence that is to the east of the building alignment on the southern property boundary. Further, 2500mm of the furthest western section of the southern property boundary fence will also be removed.

 

The side boundary fence (as proposed to be altered) complies with the planning control that fencing should be integrated with the subject dwelling through the use of compatible materials and detailing. The remaining fence will be fixed with timber blue boards and painted to provide an appearance similar to masonry structures on site.  This is also compliant with the planning control that specifies that preferred fence materials include masonry with a paint finish. As details of the paint finish have not been provided, a condition of consent has been amended to provide this to Council for approval.

 

Overall, it is considered that the modified fence is consistent with the relevant objective of the RCDCP 2013 regarding fences; which requires that fences are required to contribute positively to the public domain. The proposal is integrated with and complements the existing multi-unit housing on site and the surrounding streetscape.

 

Air Conditioning Units

The DCP stipulates that where natural ventilation cannot be achieved in residential units, air conditioning units are permissibile. The applicant has proposed screening to the air conditioning units to ameliorate against any adverse acoustic privacy impacts. The relevant condition of consent has been included to ensure that the air conditioning units do not result in unreasonable acoustic impacts on adjoining neighbouring dwellings.

 

External Referrals

NSW Heritage Council

As the site is listed on the State Heritage Register, the proposal is classified as integrated development and was referred to the NSW Heritage Council for comment:

 

As delegate of the Heritage Council, I have considered the proposed fence modifications in accordance with the required matters for consideration under Section 62 of the Heritage Act 1977. I have no objection to the fence modifications as the modifications do not result in any additional adverse impact on the significance of Prince Henry Site.

 

Please note that there are no provisions under the Heritage Act 1977 for retrospective approvals for unapproved works already carried out in relation to the installation of the air conditioners. At this stage the Heritage Council is not seeking any remediation for the unapproved works. All works in the future must gain the relevant approvals prior to being undertaken.

 

Please advise the applicant that, following determination of the application by Randwick City Council, an application under Section 65A of the Heritage Act 1977 is required to modify the approval given under the Heritage Act 1977. The application form (same as the Section 60 form) can be found at www.environment.nsw.gov.au/Heritage/publications/permitapps.htm. There are no fees for this application but the application will require the property owner’s consent prior to lodging.

 

Prince Henry Community Association

Your correspondence was discussed by the Executive Committee and the opinion of an architect who was a member of the original Design Review Panel for Prince Henry development applications sought. As a result of advice received, the Community

Association will not be lodging an objection to this DA.

 

Council’s Heritage Planner

The site has a primary frontage to Lister Avenue and a secondary frontage to Pavilion Drive.  There is no fencing to the Lister Avenue frontage, while fencing to the rear Pavilion Drive frontage consists of steel palisades.  The existing lapped and capped fencing projects beyond the front and rear building lines.  The Section 96 application proposes to remove a 2m section of fence adjacent to the Pavilion Avenue frontage and a 28m section of fence adjacent to the Lister Avenue frontage.  The fence will not therefore project beyond the front building line on the Lister Avenue frontage, and will not project beyond existing steel palisade fencing on the Pavilion Drive frontage.  The amended line of the fencing in plan will considerably reduce the streetscape visibility of the fence and its impact on the setting of and views to the former Institute of Tropical Medicine building. 

 

Due to the steep fall of the site from west to east, the fencing which has been constructed includes a series of steps and sloping sections which are quite visible from the street frontages.  The Section 96 application proposes to remove one of the sloping sections of the fence adjacent to the Pavilion Drive frontage to instead provide a stepped section.  The amended line of fencing in elevation will have a more consistent appearance, be more recessive in the setting of the Institute of Tropical Medicine building, and the streetscape of heritage conservation area. 

 

The Section 96 application also proposes to reclad the existing fence structure.  The existing fence comprises galvanised steel posts with timber rails (generally a top rail, mid rail and bottom rail) with lapped and capped palings fixed on the north (Institute of Tropical Medicine) side and the posts and rails exposed on the south (Marella development) side.  The existing fence structure is to be reclad on both sides with fibre cement sheet (blueboard) and a fibre casement capping is to be provided.  A consent condition should be included requiring that the fibre cement cladding is installed in accordance with manufacturers technical product specifications.  The proposed fibre cement sheet cladding will give the fence an appearance consistent with that of a masonry fence.  The proposed fencing changes including removal of sections at each end, removal of sloping section and recladding, will respect the open landscape character of the site and more positively contribute to the public domain.  A consent condition should also be included in relation to colours and finishes. 

 

There are no heritage objections to proposed screening to air conditioning units which have limited streetscape visibility. 

 

Recommendations

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

·      The fibre cement cladding is to be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s technical product specifications. 

 

·      Details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The colour scheme for the fence is to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage 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 modification to the original development consent satisfies Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, in that it will constitute substantially the same development, and approval of the modification will not result in any significant additional impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the streetscape. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable.

 

The proposal will comply with the relevant standards of the Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal complies with the provisions of the DCP – Prince Henry Site with the exception of the minimum landscaped area requirement for terrace dwellings which have been addressed and found acceptable in the relevant section of this report.

 

Approval of the modification will not result in any significant environmental impact and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development. It is therefore considered that the modification to the original development consent is reasonable. The proposed amendments will not result in any adverse amenity impacts on adjoining properties in acoustic privacy, visual bulk and scale.

 

It is recommended that the application to modify the consent in the manner described be approved.

 

 

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/840/2007/E for Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the existing boundary fence design and retrospective approval for the air conditioning units at 19-21 Lister Avenue, Little Bay, in the following manner:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 as follows:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered DA 03 to DA 12, Issue A, all dated 20 March 2007 and stamped received by Council on 23 March 2007, the draft strata plans in 8 sheets prepared by Whelans, Surveyor’s Reference D007-002.dwg dated/printed 4 December 2006 and stamped received by Council 19 December 2006, the Sustainability Report No S4053, Lot 18, Revision C, dated 13 December 2006 and received by Council on 19 December 2006, the application form, and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96’A’  plans numbered

 

Plan Number

Dated

Received

Prepared By

sa070009 A01-02(07)

27.05.2008

4 June 2008

Architectus

sa70009 A03-01(05)

27.05.2008

4 June 2008

Architectus

sa070009 A03-02(05)

27.05.2008

4 June 2008

Architectus

 

and Section 96 ‘B’ plans numbered A0.01, A1.01, A1.02, A1.03, A1.04, and A1.06 Rev A dated 13/12/2010, A1.01, all Revision  A and all dated 13.12.2010, and received by Council on 5 January 2011, only in so far as they relate to the modifications to the basement car park and associated works, and detailed in the Section 96 application; except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

and Section 96 ‘E’ plans numbered 547/15 Page 1 of 2, and 547/15 Page 2 of 2, all dated May 2015 and received by Council on 8 July 2014, only in so far as they relate to the modifications to the works detailed in the Section 96 application; except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

 

·           Add Condition No. 1 a):

1.       a)   The fibre cement cladding is to be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s technical product specifictations.

 

·           Amend Condition 2 to read as follows:

2.       The Details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  The colour scheme for the fence is to be compatible with the existing building and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area. 

 

·           Add Condition No. 121:

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

 

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

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

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP61/15

 

Subject:                  33 Dans Avenue, Coogee (DA/515/2015)

Folder No:                   DA/515/2015

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    The construction of a secondary dwelling within the rear yard and reduction in size of the existing swimming pool

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Day Buich Architects

Owner:                        Sue O'Connor

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview69927.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposal a variation to the floor area standard in the State Environmental Planning Policy - Affordable Rental Housing by more than 10%.

 


 

1.         Proposal

 

The application details the construction of a secondary dwelling to the rear of the site and the reduction in size of the existing swimming pool to the rear yard to accommodate the secondary dwelling.

 

2.         Site

 

The site is on the southern side of Dans Avenue Coogee and has a frontage of 13.715m, a depth of 57.91m and an area of 794m². The locality is primarily residential in nature and includes a mixture of free standing dwellings and multi-unit housing development. To the immediate east of the site there is a commercial tennis centre ‘Top Shot Tennis’ containing three tennis courts.

 

3.         Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No response has been received.

 

4.         Key Issues

 

4.1      State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) - Affordable Rental Housing 2009

The SEPP was introduced on 31 July 2009 to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW. The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 to require new in-fill development; low rise development; boarding houses, and Housing NSW proposals to be subject to a local character test to ensure that developments are consistent with the design of the local area and the affordable housing component being provided as a percentage of the total floor space. The amendment does not change provisions for other types of accommodation such as granny flats, group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

This application has been submitted seeking consent under Division 2 of the SEPP: Affordable housing 2009 for Secondary dwellings and its provisions will not be affected by the abovementioned review. Under Division 2 the following clauses are relevant:

 

Clause 19 Definition

The proposed development falls within the scope of the definition of a secondary dwelling in that it entails development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling by use of a structure which is not an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

Clause 20 Land to which this division applies

This subject site is located on Zone R2 Low Density Residential identified under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 and the development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permissible on the land.

 

Clause 21 Development to which Division applies

The proposed development for a secondary dwelling may be carried out with consent under this SEPP subject to Clause 22 below.

 

Clause 22   Development may be carried out with consent

Under Subclause 3(a) & (b) the following criteria apply:

 

(a)     the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling must be no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument, and

 

(b)     the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60 square metres or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.

 

The proposal complies with the LEP for dwelling houses with a combined floor space ratio of 0.35:1. The proposed floor area of the secondary dwelling does however exceeds the 60m² allowable in the SEPP for Affordable Housing, being 76m². An exception to the development standard has been lodged for consideration, see discussion below.

 

Clause 23   Complying development

The proposed development is not complying development as defined under the SEPP as it forms part of the proposed development of the existing structures which are detailed in a Development Application.

 

Clause 24   No subdivision

The proposed development does not result in any subdivision of the lot on which development for the purposes of the secondary dwelling has been carried out under this Division.

 

4.2    Exception to Development Standard

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)      The consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor area development standard as details in the SEPP – Affordable Rental Housing. The applicant has submitted a written request that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of the LEP.

 

 

Floor Area

Proposal

76m²

Development standard

60m²

Excess above or less than the standard

27% excess (16m²)

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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 underlying objectives of the FSR of buildings standard SEPP Affordable Housing are to control the visual bulk and scale of the secondary dwelling and to ensure that it is subservient to the principal dwelling house on the land.

 

The applicant’s written justifications state that the proposed will still meet the objectives of the development standard for the following reasons:

 

i.  The general locality and zoning permits and encourages the development of dwelling houses. Compliance with DCP requirements is seen with minimal impact of adjoining neighbours in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views.

ii. The proposal is a single storey dwelling located at the rear of the existing property. Windows are placed in such a manner that it is not possible to view into any neighbouring properties. The single storey nature negates any adverse overshadowing effects.

iii. To the rear there is an existing 2.8m high wall, the neighbor to the rear is located a further 20m plus from this boundary.

iv. In terms of visual bulk the dwelling is only single storey in nature and therefore does not result in visual bulk issues, including any loss of views.

v. The proposal is a 1 bedroom granny flat designed to be the residence of the existing owners of 33 Dans Avenue as they will be downsizing. The continued use of the site as low density residential means that the site maintains the character of the encircling residential area.

vi. The proposal maintains the existing streetscape, the proposed dwelling is low density 1 bedroom granny flat that is not visible from the street. The separate entrance appears on the front façade as a side gate approximately 900mm wide and 1.6m high. The gate is currently existing and therefore the same street façade is maintained.

vii.       The proposal complies with all other standards as set out in the Randwick DCP for secondary dwellings, including private open space, deep soil planting, landscaping, site coverage and height. All of which results in a low impact development.

viii.      The development is a 1 bedroom granny flat for the retiring couple who currently own the main dwelling. The site is very large 794m² for such a location and thus a single storey secondary dwelling provides a low impact method of increasing density without effecting the amenity of neighbours or altering the character of the area.

ix. The development supports the underlying objectives of the standard.

x. Noncompliance of the maximum floor area for a secondary dwelling under the ARH SEPP does not result in any adverse environmental impacts on the amenity of the surrounding area in general, and or the amenity of the nearby residential properties in particular.

xi. The scale of the proposal will not withstanding the noncompliance is compatible with the surrounding area, due to the fact that it is a single storey, compact form and located a long way away from the neighbouring properties.

 

The applicant’s argument has merit and it is considered that the proposal is satisfactory and strict compliance with the floor area standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case for the following reasons:

 

The resultant floor area of the secondary dwelling will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining residents with respect to overshadowing, loss of privacy or visual outlook as the position the dwelling is well away from any of the adjoining dwellings and adjoins the much higher rear yards of the property behind and to the west, and the tennis courts of the tennis centre to the eastern side.

 

It therefore cannot be argued that concurrence to this variation is in conflict with the objectives of the standard as the resultant floor area will not result in any unreasonable impact to the amenity of the local residents because the floor area of the secondary dwelling remains consistent with the existing and adjoining buildings and satisfies the objectives in the FSR in the RLEP standard in that the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The very low floor space ratio achieved on the site also demonstrates that the size of the secondary dwelling is appropriate to the proportions of the site and will remain subservient to the principal dwelling house on the site.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that allowing for a departure from the floor area standard would not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal in its current form will be in the public interest as it will remain consistent with the objectives of the floor area standard and the zoning objectives.

 

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

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the FSR 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.

 

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

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 height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the floor area 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.

 

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

 

4.3    Rear setback of building

The objectives of the RDCP – Low Density Residential seek to;

 

a)   Maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

b)   Ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

c)   Ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access.

d)   Reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting.

e)   Enable a reasonable level of view sharing between a development and the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

The proposed secondary dwelling is sited up to 961mm from the rear boundary and in this instance an assessment must be made as to whether or not the proposal will still satisfy the objectives of the DCP.

 

At present there is a masonry and timber fence to the rear boundary between the subject site and the property directly behind at 27 Division Street. The height of the fence is 2.8m above ground level.

 

Due to the difference in land levels with the subject site being substantially below the adjoining properties to the rear and the west the proposed dwelling is sited below those properties. There will as a result be no impact upon privacy to the property at the rear as the windows will be below the level of the existing rear fence.

 

The position of the building will also not impact upon access to light and ventilation to the property at the rear because the elevated nature of that property, deep open rear yard and northern aspect allows for ample access to light and ventilation. 

 

In relation to outlook from the rear property, the dwelling has a sloping roof which falls from the east to west and will be visible from the rear property. A condition of consent is included to reduce the maximum height of the roof by 1m which will lower the height of the roof to approximately 1m above the height of the fence and will improve the visual outlook from the adjoining property.

 

It is therefore considered that the position of the dwelling will still satisfy the objectives of the DCP with respect to the rear setback as the building will not compromise access to light and ventilation and solar access to the private open space of the adjoining property.

 

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 secondary dwelling and alterations to the existing swimming pool will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties and will satisfy the relevant objectives in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Randwick Development Control Plan – Low Density Residential

 

 

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 the Floor Area Standard as detailed in the           State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) - Affordable Rental Housing 2009 on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above RLEP and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 515/2015 for the erection of a secondary dwelling and alterations to the existing swimming pool at No. 33 Dans Avenue, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The overall height of the secondary dwelling must be reduced to a maximum height of RL53.86.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 33 Dans Avenue, Coogee

INCLUDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                 27 October 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP62/15

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and clause 4.6 between 27 August to 30 September 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 27 August 2015 to 30 September 2015 – eight (8) were approved during this period by Planning Committee Meeting, Ordinary Council Meeting, and under Delegation.

 

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

Clause4.6 - October 2015 (Attachment)

 

 

 

 


Clause4.6 - October 2015 (Attachment)

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 27 AUGUST AND 30 SEPTEMBER 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/206/2015             

 

71

36560

 

7

LasseterStreet

CHIFLEY

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 5.8% above FSR standards

NSW Dept of Planning

 

27-Aug-2015

 

Delegated

 

DA/446/2015

4049

752015

 

14

Hume Street

CHIEFLEY

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 is 4.6% above FSR standards

NSW Dept of Planning

10-Sep-2015

 

Delegated

 

 

DA/513/2015

 

C

 

320680

 

 

12

 

Torrington Road

 

MAROUBRA

 

2035

 

1: Residential - Alterations & additions

 

 

RLEP 2012

 

 

R2 - Low Density Residential

 

 

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

 

 

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

 

Building height is in excess of 8.6%

 

 

NSW Dept of Planning

 

16-Sep-2015

 

 

Delegated

 

 

DA/25/2015

 

1

 

524160