Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 10 November 2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 1300 722 542

Fax: 02 9319 1510

 council@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street, Randwick on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 6:00pm

 

 

Committee Members:         The Mayor N D’Souza, Andrews, Belleli, Bowen, Garcia, Matson, Moore, Nash, Neilson, Roberts (Deputy Chairperson), Seng, Shurey, Smith, Stavrinos (Chairperson) and Stevenson

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 8 September 2015

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D73/15     3 Adams Avenue, Malabar (DA/361/2015)............................. 1

D74/15     7 Close Street, South Coogee (DA/463/2013/A)................... 13

D75/15     41 Cuzco Street, South Coogee (DA/237/2015).................... 29

D76/15     36 Burke Street, Chifley (DA/130/2012/C)........................... 53

D77/15     91 Paine Street, Maroubra (DA/1/2008/A)............................ 59

D78/15     1094-1118 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/583/2015)............. 65

D79/15     169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/238/1998/C)............... 77

 

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting NOT required)

M8/15       Planning Proposal - 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra ................. 89

M9/15       Randwick Light Rail Alignment Working Group...................... 99    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB 

Development Application Report No. D73/15

 

 

Subject:                  3 Adams Avenue, Malabar (DA/361/2015)

Folder No:               DA/361/2015

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

 

Proposal:                 Construction of new garage with studio unit above fronting Rubie Lane, new rear balconies to first and second floor units, and new metal awning over the existing rooftop terrace and changes to strata plan.(Variation to floor space ratio and height controls)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Classic Plan

Owner:                    The Owners - Strata Plan No. 89654

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview19157.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The applicant has been assessed by the external consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the adjoining property has a close personal relationship with a Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed development is for alterations and additions to an existing 3 storey residential flat building, including the construction of rear balconies for Units 2 and 3, the provision of a metal roof over the existing trafficable roof and a new garage with an above garage studio at the rear of the lot, fronting Rubie Lane.

 

The alterations and additions to the residential flat building include:

 

§ The construction of 7.72m2 metal balconies with glass balustrading to the rear / northern side of the building, at the first and second floors;

§ Remove the existing northern windows and replace with bi-folding doors, providing access to the proposed balconies;

§ Construction of a new metal awning over the majority of the existing roof top terrace, with a maximum height of 14m; and

§ Removal of the existing carport structure and construction of a garage and above garage studio.

 

The proposal also involves strata subdivision of the proposed balconies, which will be added to the existing Strata Lots for the respective floor plans, as well as the creation of an additional strata lot for the proposed studio.

 

1.  Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Adams Avenue, with a primary frontage to Adams Avenue in the south and a secondary frontage to Rubie Lane in the north.

 

The site forms a rectangular shape, with a width of 6m and a depth of 33.53m, forming a total site area of 204.4m2.

 

The subject site contains a three (3) storey residential flat building containing three (3) units with 1 unit per level and a trafficable roof which is accessed via a stairwell, from apartment 3.

 

As illustrated in the below site photos, the site also has a carport constructed off the rear lane for parking of 2 vehicles.

 

Between the residential flat building and the garage is a communal landscaped area.

DSC_0049

Figure 1: Subject site as viewed from Adams Avenue in the south

 

DSC_0044

Figure 2: Subject site as viewed from Rubie Lane in the north

 

 

 

 

 

2.  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

 

3.  Key Issues

 

3.1 Request to vary development standard

The DA requires consideration of the standards for building height and floor space ratio

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum height standard and maximum floor space ratio (FSR) contained in clause 4.3 and 4.4 of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed variations is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Allowed

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.3 Height

9.5m

12m

No

26.3%

4.4 Floor space Ratio

1:1

1.55:1

No

55%

 

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 height standard are set out in Clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The objectives of the FSR standard are set out in Clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Height:

 

 

Assessment Comments:

The proposed development will exceed the maximum permissible building height by 26% or 2.5m. Whilst this seems significant, the proposed height of the metal awning protrudes only 550mm above the existing maximum height of the existing rooftop stairwell structure and therefore, the height variation is marginal in comparison to the existing height, as illustrated in Figure 3 below:

 

Figure 3: Eastern elevation illustrating the minor increase in height from the existing stairwell structure.

 

The roof awning is setback from the Adams Avenue frontage by 6.2m and 2.19m from the northern wall alignment. It is there considered that the recessed nature of the metal awning will have a negligible impact upon the existing streetscape and character of the area. Furthermore, the proposed roof structure does not inhibit the development in achieving the overall objectives of the zone or of the standard and therefore the proposed variation is supported.

 

In the circumstances of the application, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to require strict compliance for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed development does not contribute to any additional bulk or scale impacts as it relates to the construction of the metal awning only, which is not enclosed;

·     The dwelling component in the lower level of Apartment 3 has suffered water damage due to the unprotected nature of the existing roof terrace;

·     The metal awning will facilitate greater use of the existing upper level trafficable roof top terrace, which in its current form is not protected from the elements;

·     The predominant alterations and additions are contained well within the allowable height limit, with the proposed above garage studio having a maximum height of 6.06m;

·     The height of the building as viewed from Adams Avenue and in the context of the surrounding properties will remain the same;

·     The encroachment is minor from that which currently exists and therefore the development will not result in a negative impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties;

·     The lightweight and recessed nature of the awning will have no adverse impacts to surrounding properties; and

 

Further to the above, the structure has been setback from the southern side. It would be unlikely to set a precedent as it relates to the existing roof terrace and stairwell which would be unlikely to be achieve on other properties.

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the proposal meets the objectives of Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012 and that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposed overall building height will be satisfactory. The variation will not have any significant or unreasonable impacts on the streetscape and will continue to achieve the relevant objectives of both the standard and the zone. In this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

Floor Space Ratio:

 

 

Assessment Comments:

The proposed development will exceed the maximum permissible floor space ratio by 55% or 112.42m2. Whilst this seems significant, the existing approved FSR is 1.35:1 with the only additional FSR being in relation to the proposed above garage studio, which represents a gross floor area of 34.5m2.

 

The proposed above garage studio does not result in any bulk or scale impacts that would otherwise necessitate non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard.

 

In particular, the proposed above garage studio does not result in any unreasonable overshadowing impacts, nor does it result in the loss of views or visual or aural privacy.

 

The proposed above garage studio is considered to represent improved planning outcomes given that it promotes affordable rental housing and provides for alternative means of residential accommodation.

 

It is there considered that the additional FSR will have a negligible impact upon the existing streetscape and character of the area. Furthermore, the proposed FSR does not inhibit the development in achieving the overall objectives of the zone or of the standard and therefore the proposed variation is supported.

 

In the circumstances of the application, it would be unreasonable and unnecessary to require strict compliance for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed development does not contribute to any additional bulk or scale impacts as it relates to the above garage studio which has a height of 6m;

·     The proposed above garage studio results in improved planning outcomes;

·     The bulk and scale of the building when viewed from Adams Avenue will remain largely unchanged;

·     The proposed above garage studio is consistent with the recently approved development immediately to the east at 5-7 Adams Avenue (as shown in Figure 4 below) and therefore is compatible with the Rubie Lane character; and

·     The proposed FSR will not result in a negative impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

Figure 4: Approved northern (garage and above garage studio) elevation at 5-7 Adams Avenue

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the proposal meets the objectives of Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012 and that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposed overall building height will be satisfactory. The variation will not have any significant or unreasonable impacts on the streetscape and will continue to achieve the relevant objectives of both the standard and the zone. In this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable.

 

 

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

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 minimizing potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

 

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

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the height standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (B1 Neighbourhood Centre) are:

 

a)     To provide a range of small-scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

b)     To enable residential development that is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of the zone.

c)     To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives, as follows:

 

·          It contains an existing residential flat building;

·          Unit 1 on the ground floor is capable of accommodating a small-scale retail business or the like (objective a);

·          The proposal provides for an above garage studio apartment consistent with recent approvals in the surrounding neighbourhood (objective b); and

•       The proposed development will have no impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The adjoining residential flat buildings are of a similar character (objective c).

 

In this regard, the proposal meets the objectives of the zone, despite the non-compliance with Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.4 of the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

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 the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone.

 

4.2 Car parking

The proposed development includes the provision of a garage located off Rubie Lane. The garage, as existing does not comply with the minimum car space widths, in accordance with Australian Standard 2890.1:2004.

 

Specifically, under AS 2890.1, parking bay 1 is required to have a minimum width of 2.4m and parking bay 2 is required to have a minimum width of 2.7m. Both parking bays are designed to be 2.396m wide, which results in non-compliances with the Australian Standards.

 

To rectify the parking non-compliances, the proposed pedestrian access would need to be reduced in width, therefore resulting in a non-compliant access way, which is also not supported.

 

The proposed garage is therefore only suitable for the provision of 1 vehicular space.

 

However, notwithstanding the above, given the existing arrangement allows for 2 car spaces, the proposed replacement of the carport with a garage is suitable, given that it results in greater amenity and improved streetscape outcomes.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject land is located within Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre pursuant to the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.  The proposed development, being for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building for the construction of balconies and a roof top awning as well as the demolition of the existing carport and construction of a garage and an above garage studio is permissible within the B1 Neighbourbood Centre zone.

 

No submissions were received during the exhibition process.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs.  Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No. DA/361/2015 may be supported.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 361/2015 for the construction of a new garage with studio unit above fronting Rubie Lane, new rear balconies to first and second floor units, and new metal awning over the existing rooftop terrace and changes to strata plan at No.3 Adams Avenue, Malabar, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

§  The western balustrade to levels 1 and 2 shall consist of obscure glazing.

§  Highlight windows (W4 and W5) on the southern elevation of the above garage studio must be operable to allow ventilation.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 3 Adams Avenue, Malabar

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D74/15

 

Subject:                  7 Close Street, South Coogee (DA/463/2013/A)

Folder No:               DA/463/2013/A

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification seeking to adjust crossover, location of tree in front yard, delete rear pergola, reduce size of pool, relocate bin store, changes to windows, new stairs along northern side and internal configuration

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr D J Galea Mrs D M Galea

Owner:                    Mr D J Galea Mrs D M Galea

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original development application was determined by Council 2 December 2013. As the proposed modification relates to a site that is in proximity to the residence of a Randwick City Councillor the assessment and recommendation has been peer reviewed by an external planning consultant.

Proposal

 

The section 96 application seeks to make the following modifications:

 

Front yard:

·      Increase width of driveway opening (the widening of the driveway will require the removal of a small Council tree)

 

·      Increase width of garage doorway to 5m. Increase in width of the garage door to 5m allows for condition 13 to be deleted

·      Relocate tree

·      Reconfigured front elevation between entry and garage

·      New steps from entry to the driveway

·      Adjust ground levels to generally following existing ground levels

·      New planter between front yard and driveway

·      Relocate bin store from southern side passageway to the front: adjacent to the north western corner of garage.

 

Rear yard: 

·      Reduce pool size

·      Increase area of private open space (POS)

·      Replace turf area with permeable paving in some areas

 

Rumpus level

·      Reconfigure rumpus bath

·      Replace laundry with store room

·      Increase side setback of rear portion of the northern elevation to accommodate new stair setback 950mm from the northern side boundary. The proposed stairs replace the approved spiral stair located within the ground level balcony.

 

Ground level

·      Stair: The proposal seeks to install new stairs along the northern side of the development replacing the approved spiral stairs located within the ground level balcony.

·      Screens: Reduce length of screens along sides of ground level balcony.

·      Reduce size of kitchen window (W2.01)

·      Alter windows W2.07 and W2.08 along the southern elevation

 

First floor level

·      Replace angled windows (W3.04, W3.05, W3.06 & W3.08) projecting out from the main northern elevation with windows within a flat northern elevation. Delete window W3.07.

·      Reconfigure bedroom sizes and general layout

·      Delete WC and increase size of en-suite

·      Relocate east facing bathroom window to southern side elevation

·      Alter dimensions of front first floor bedroom windows emphasizing horizontal elements

·      Reduce area of louvres across the front first floor level.

 

Amended plans:

The applicant submitted amended plans including notification plans clearly identifying the proposed changes.

 

Configuration of southern side screen:

The amended plans now show the proposed southern side screens, whilst still sought to be reduced in length, will now be configured in the same north-east direction as originally approved rather than configured in a south-east direction where it would afford views towards the side courtyard of No. 6 Palmer Street.

 

Original consent:

Approval granted at the Council meeting on 10 December 2013 for demolition of existing structures, construction of part two/part three storey dwelling. Non-standard conditions imposed on the original consent include:

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

 

a.       The louvre window on the ground floor, along the southern elevation off the hallway is to have opaque glazing.

 

b.       The louvres along the sides of the ground floor rear deck are to be fixed and are to be of a size as shown on the approved plans.

 

c.       The screen planting along the northern boundary setback is to be at a height, at full maturity, 3 metres.  

 

Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Close Street between Palmer Street to the south and Pearce Street to the north. The land slopes from the street to the rear boundary and has a fall of around 2.7m. The property has a width of 12.1metres and a length of 30.175 metres. The overall site area is 368.1m². The area contains a mix of older style detached houses and newer detached dwellings which are generally 2 and 3 levels. The southern side boundary of the property runs along the rear boundaries of No. 2 and No. 4 Palmer Street. The eastern rear boundary runs along a portion of the side boundary of No.6 Palmer Street. The northern side boundary adjoins the side boundary of No. 5 Close Street.

 

Rear yard of subject site: shows the construction progress, rear sun lounge area (elevated balcony behind) of No. 5 Close Street in the background and direction of ocean and land interface view (not affected by the proposed section 96 modifications)

 

 

 

 

 

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:

 

·      5 Close Street

·      TranPlan Sydney (on behalf of 5 Close Street)

·      6 Palmer Street

·      2 Palmer Street

 

Issues: Visual and acoustic privacy impacts from new stairs (including reduced setback) and reduced length of privacy screens

 

Comments:

The proposed stairs contain adequate privacy protection measures.  The proposed staircase contains 1.6m high screening around the stairs ensuring reasonable privacy protection of the neighbouring property to the north at No. 5 Close Street.

 

The proposed reduction in length of privacy screens along the sides of the elevated ground level balcony will result in greater overlooking into the northern neighbour’s sun lounge area increasing the level of overlooking into their sun lounge area and rear yard than that resulting from the approved development. It is considered reasonable to require reinstatement of the originally approved privacy screens inclusive of their configuration. There is a 12m distance from the rear neighbours middle courtyard is which is considered suitable for the purposes of visual privacy protection.

                                                  

The side setback of the stairs is not considered unreasonable in so far as it is generally equidistant with the northern neighbour’s side setback of their main built form, and it will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring property having regard to solar access, visual or acoustic privacy. In relation to acoustic privacy, the use of stairs associated with single residential premises is not considered a source of significant or unreasonable adverse noise impacts. It is further noted that the approved development already contains stairs located within the balcony and although these stairs are located further away they difference in setbacks between the approved and proposed stairs is not considered to result in any appreciable difference in noise nuisance.

 

Note: The originally proposed modification to the southern side screens showed them being reconfigured the opposite direction to that originally approved. Amended plans have been received reverting to the original configuration.

 

Issue: Object to a tree within the front yard that is higher than 3m at maturity and more than 2m in width.

 

Comment: A condition is included limiting the height of the tree within the front yard to a maximum height of 3m at maturity.

 

Key Issues

 

The following modifications raise key issues in the assessment of the application:

 

·      Relocating bin store from southern side passageway to the front adjacent to the garage

·      New stair along the northern side of the elevated rear ground level balcony replacing the existing spiral stair within the balcony

·      Reduction in length of screens along sides of elevated rear ground level balcony

 

The assessment of these modifications is carried out as follows:

 

Relocating bin store from southern side passageway to the front adjacent to the garage

The proposed relocation of the bin store to the front adjacent to the north western corner of garage is not considered suitable in so far as it is located in close proximity to the window opening within the front elevation of No. 5 Close Street and the associated works increases the ground level by around 720mm above the existing and neighbours ground level (RL26.88). This means that  in order to ensure a suitable 1200mm high enclosure for the bins to limit odor impacts, it would result in an overall height 1.92m above the neighbours land level which is considered excessive and will present obtrusively when viewed from the neighbour’s front yard. A condition is included requiring the bin enclosure to be retained in its approved location alternatively the bins may be stored within the garage or housed along the southern side of the site. The southern side of the site is considered reasonable location as ground levels along this side generally follow the existing topography and the approved boundary fence provides a reasonable visual buffer.

 

New stair along the northern side of the development replacing the approved spiral stair located within the balcony. The proposed stairs are sited 950mm from the northern side boundary opposite neighbouring property at No. 5 Close Street.

 

·      Side setbacks

The proposed stairs are located 950mm from the northern side boundary and do not comply with the 1200mm minimum side setback control under Section 3.3.2 Side Setback of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013). Where a proposal does not meet the minimum numerical controls under the RDCP 2013, an assessment is required against the objectives under the relevant section within the RDCP 2013.

 

The relevant objectives relating to side setbacks within Section 3.3.2 of the RDCP 2013 read as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

The proposed reduction in length of the screens along both sides are the subject of impacts on privacy raised by neighbouring properties at No. 5 Close Street to the north and at No. 6 Palmer Street to the east. Each of the neighbour’s concerns are considered having regard to an assessment of the objectives for Visual and Acoustic privacy under Section 5.3 and 5.4 in Part C1 Low Density Residential under the RDCP 2013.

 

The objectives under Sections 5.3 Visual Privacy and 5.4 Acoustic Privacy read as follows:

 

 

Visual Privacy objective:

 

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

 

Acoustic privacy objective:

 

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

 

Visual privacy

In relation to visual privacy, No 5 Close Street is the neighbouring property north of the subject site and the most susceptible to adverse privacy impacts. The main issue raised by this neighbour relates to the proposed location of the stairs resulting in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts. Although the proposed stairs are only 950mm from the northern side boundary, it is considered that there is sufficient separation for the purposes of general amenity in so far as the stairs are located generally equidistance to the side setback of the opposite neighbours main built form. In terms of ensuring adequate visual privacy, these stairs are considered to have been adequately designed with 1.6m high privacy screens surrounding the stairs.

 

Overall, having regard to visual privacy, the proposed design and location of the stairs being 950mm from the northern side boundary will continue to satisfy the above objective under Section 3.3.2 Side setbacks and Section 5.3 of Part C1 of the RDCP 2013.

 

Acoustic privacy

In relation to Acoustic privacy, the proposed stairs are not considered a significant noise source as it is associated with a single residential use which in general does not give rise to inordinate noise impacts such as those that would be associated with a multi occupancy use or commercial premises.

 

The proposed stairs are associated with a residential use and not considered to be an area where its use will result in any inordinate noise impacts on the neighbouring property opposite. It is noted that there are stairs already located within the balcony and whilst these stairs are located further away it is considered that difference in the distance between the location of the approved and proposed stairs would not be appreciably discernible having regard to noise transmission. Further it is noted that the spiral stairs are as noted by the applicant made of metal which would likely result in greater noise impacts than those associated with the proposed new stairs located along the northern side boundary. A condition is also included requiring the stairs to made of timber and not metal.

 

Solar access

The proposed stairs are located at the northern side of the site and will not result in any additional loss of solar access to the neighbouring properties to the south at No. 2, and 4 Palmer Street.

 

Overall, the proposed objectives that seek to ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access are considered to have been satisfied.

 

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

 

The proposed development as sought to be amended retains sufficient areas of POS in the rear yard.

 

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

 

Views are not being impacted by the proposed stairs and the non-compliance with the numerical side setback control.

 

Reduction in length of screens along sides of elevated rear ground level balcony

The plan excerpt below shows the reduced screen lengths as well as those approved (marked in blue). As indicated earlier, the configuration of the screen located along the southern side of the balcony have been reconfigured so that they are consistent with the configuration of the originally approved screens.

 

Excerpt showing proposed screen lengths (black louvres) and original screen lengths (blue louvres).

 

An assessment of the visual and acoustic privacy impact associated with the reduction in screen lengths is assessed against the objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

The proposed reduction in screen lengths along the northern and southern sides of the balcony will result in more overlooking into the sun-lounge and rear yard of the neighbours property at No. 5 Close Street. These screens will also result in more overlooking into the rear yard of No. 4 Palmer Street. It is acknowledged that the reduction in screens will also overlook the middle courtyard of No 6 Palmer Street however there is a 12m distance from the balcony and the middle courtyard which is considered suitable for the purposes of privacy protection.

 

The additional overlooking into the rear yard and sun lounge of No. 5 Close Street is considered unreasonable. The applicant contends that the screens reduction is required because of the following:

 

·      Feedback from the builder suggests that certain elements of the approved design suffer from a lack of build-ability and

·      The removal of three louvre blades will allow the screens to be supported by the deck above.

 

It is acknowledged that additional support may be required for the full length screens that are not able to be fixed to the frame above (upper level balcony). As such, it is considered that the screens located beyond the top level balcony may be reduced down to a height of 1.8m which should make it easier to install the louvres to the length approved under the original application. It is noted that condition 1b of the original consent requires that these louvre screens be fixed at the angle shown on the plans.

 

Overall the reduction of screen lengths is not supported and it is recommended that the originally proposed screen lengths be reinstated. The screens extending beyond the rear of the upper level balcony may be reduced in height up to a minimum of 1.8m to improve build-ability of these screens.

 

Alter windows W2.07 and W2.08 along the southern elevation.

Window W2.07 is in a similar location to the original hall window which was required to be treated with obscure glazing (by condition 1a of the original consent). The applicant shows that this window is now associated with a bathroom and treated with obscured glazing. This window is also associated with a use that would contain its own privacy measures. Condition 1a is required to be amended as follows:

 

1a.   The bottom sash of the louvre window (W2.07) on the ground floor, along the southern elevation off the WC is to have opaque glazing up to a minimum height of 1.6m above internal floor level.

 

Other modifications

There are no objections to the following modifications sought as part of this application:

 

·      Increase width of driveway opening; Comment: The widened driveway ensures proper maneuverability. The required removal of a small Council Street tree is not objected to by Councils Landscape Officer.

·      Increase width of garage doorway to 5m; Comment: This amendment requires Condition 13 is required to be deleted as it is consistent with the requirements of condition 13.

·      Relocate tree within the front yard;

·      Reconfigured front elevation between entry and garage

·      New steps from entry to the driveway

·      Adjust ground levels in front yard to generally following existing ground levels

·      New planter between front yard and driveway

·      Reduce pool size increasing area of Private open space (POS)

·      Replace portions of turf with permeable paving in some areas;

·      Reconfigure rumpus bath

·      Replace laundry with store room locate store room at ground floor level

·      Reduce size of ground level kitchen window (W2.01)

·      Replace angled first floor windows (W3.04, W3.05, W3.06 & W3.08) projecting out from the main northern elevation with windows within a flat northern elevation. Delete first floor window W3.07.

·      Reconfigure first floor bedroom sizes and general layout

·      Delete first floor level WC and increase size of en-suite

·      Relocate east facing first floor bathroom window to southern elevation

·      Alter dimensions of front first floor bedroom windows emphasizing horizontal elements and reduce area of louvres across these windows

 

Development engineering and landscape Officer comments:

 

An application has been received to modify development consent for construction of a new dwelling at the above site.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·          Architectural Plans by Breathe Design dated 14/7/2015;

·          Statement of Environmental Effects by Breathe Design dated July 2015

 

The modifications to the development consent include widening the driveway entrance at the site frontage and increasing the garage door width to 5.00m.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that with the proposed widening of the driveway entrance at the front boundary Council’s alignment level condition (Condition No 12 of the DA Consent) is to be amended to read as follows:

 

Design Alignment levels

12.   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 be as follows:

 

·       Driveway Entrance Northern Edge RL 27.65 AHD

·       Driveway Entrance Southern Edge RL 27.85 AHD

·       Pedestrian Entrance RL 28.13 AHD (approx)

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council 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.

 

The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $610.00 calculated at $50.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

The Planning Officer is advised that with the proposed widening of the garage door entrance to 5.00m as previously conditioned by Development Engineering then the subject condition (Condition No 13) can be deleted from the consent.

 

Garage Door Opening Width

13.   Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate the applicant is to amended the approved plans to show the garage door opening with a minimum width of 5.00m

The Planning Officer is advised that with the widening of the driveway entrance small Council Street is to be removed and thus the following condition is to be added to the Development Consent:

 

Tree management

#        Permission is granted for the applicant/owner to remove the small Council Street Tree located within the construction zone of the new Council vehicular crossing, the removal is at the applicants’/owners expense.

 

a.     The applicant shall submit a total payment of $107.25  to Council,

 

b.     Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre replacement street tree at the completion of all works ($97.50) + GST

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks’ notice to arrange for removal of the street tree prior to the commencement of site works, as well as upon completion, to arrange for planting of the replacement street tree.

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications as conditioned are suitable for the site given the reasons outlined in the body of this report and having particular regard to the context of the surrounding area. The proposed modifications that do not satisfy the relevant objectives relate to the reduced length of the privacy screens along the sides of the elevated rear ground level balcony and the proposed location of the bin storage area these elements are required to be deleted as conditions of consent.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 463/2013 for Section 96 modification seeking to adjust crossover, location of tree in front yard, delete rear pergola, reduce size of pool, relocate bin store, changes to windows, new stairs along northern side and internal configuration, at No. 7 Close Street, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Amend condition 1 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

1306/DA01 -  1306/DA25

Anderson Architectures

Nov. 2013

8 November 2013

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

482663S

20 July 2013

20 July 2013

 

as amended by the following Section 96 plans and documentation:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

S-96/101 Rev A

 

30/07/2015

30 July 2015

S-96/202 Rev A

17/07/2015

14 July 2015

S-96/204 Rev B

30/07/2015

30 July 2015

S-96/206 Rev A

17/07/2015

14 July 2015

S-96/301 Rev A

17/07/2015

14 July 2015

S-96/401 Rev A

17/07/2015

14 July 2015

S-96/402 Rev A

17/07/2015

14 July 2015

S-96/403 Rev A

17/07/2015

14 July 2015

S-96/404 Rev A

17/07/2015

14 July 2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

646548S

14 July 2015

14 July 2015

 

Amend condition 1 “Amendment of Plans & Documentation” to read:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The bottom sash of the louvre window (W2.07) on the ground floor, along the southern elevation off the WC is to have opaque glazing up to a minimum height of 1.6m above internal floor level..

 

b.   The louvres along the sides of the ground floor rear deck are to be fixed and designed as follows:

 

·       Northern side: fixed louvres (configured in a north easterly direction) shall be installed for a length of 2.0m running from the end of the stair landing in an easterly direction. The height of these louvres shall be full length to the underside of the first floor level balcony. The remaining louvres may be reduced in height to a minimum of 1.8m above the ground level deck level.

·       Southern side: fixed louvres (configured in a north easterly direction) shall be installed for a length of 3.3m from the rear ground level elevation in an easterly direction. The height of these louvres shall be full length to the underside of the first floor level balcony. The remaining louvres may be reduced in height to a minimum of 1.8m above the ground level deck level.

 

Details showing compliance with this condition shall be submitted to Council’s Manager of Development Assessment for approval prior to an Amended Construction certificate being issued for this part of the development.

 

c.    The screen planting along the northern boundary setback shall contain species that at full maturity only reach 3 metres in height.

 

d.   The tree within the front yard shall be of a species that at full maturity, only reaches 3 metres in height. Tree species selected shall be relatively narrow in canopy width in order to retain views from the rear of 2 Palmer Street.

 

e.   The proposed bin store area adjacent to the must be deleted from the application and replaced with garden bed at around natural ground level (approx. RL26.88). The condition has been included as the increased ground level in close proximity to the neighbours habitable room windows will likely result in odour nuisance. In addition, a bin enclosure along this side of the site will result in an excessively high fence along the northern side neighbours front yard.

 

The bin store area may either be retained in its approved location along the southern side alcove, within the garage or along the southern side of the dwelling over natural ground level. The southern side of the site is considered reasonable location as ground levels along this side generally follow the existing topography and the approved boundary fence provides a reasonable visual buffer.

 

Amend condition 12 to read:

 

Design Alignment levels

12.   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 be as follows:

 

·           Driveway Entrance Northern Edge RL 27.65 AHD

·           Driveway Entrance Southern Edge RL 27.85 AHD

·           Pedestrian Entrance RL 28.13 AHD (approx.)

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council 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.

 

The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $610.00 calculated at $50.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Delete condition 13

 

Add the condition 59:

 

59.   Tree management

Permission is granted for the applicant/owner to remove the small Council Street Tree located within the construction zone of the new Council vehicular crossing, the removal is at the applicants’/owners expense.

 

·      The applicant shall submit a total payment of $107.25  to Council,

 

·      Being the cost for Council to supply and install 1 x 25 litre replacement street tree at the completion of all works ($97.50) + GST

 

The contribution shall be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre, prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9399-0613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks’ notice to arrange for removal of the street tree prior to the commencement of site works, as well as upon completion, to arrange for planting of the replacement street tree.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Plandev Pty Ltd - Peer Review Report  7 Close Street, South Coogee

 

 

 

 


Plandev Pty Ltd - Peer Review Report  7 Close Street, South Coogee

Attachment 1

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D75/15

 

Subject:                  41 Cuzco Street, South Coogee (DA/237/2015)

Folder No:               DA/237/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and new upper level addition to the existing dwelling house (variation to building height and floor space ratio controls).

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr D Epstein

Owner:                    Mr D J Muddle and Ms L E Muddle

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

One submission received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed development exceeds the Height of Buildings standard under Clause 4.3(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%. The applicant has submitted an exception under Clause 4.6 of the RLEP 2012 - Clause 4.3(2) to the maximum Height of Buildings standard.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed is for alterations and new upper level addition to the existing dwelling house.

 

Lower Ground Floor (Garage)

·      Wall removed

 

Ground floor

·      Reconfiguration of internal layout

 

First floor

·      New stairs to proposed second floor level

 

Second floor level

·      New storey containing master bedroom, large bathroom and walk in robe.

 

Amendments:

 

The application was amended as follows:

 

·      Reduction of the overall height by reducing the first floor level floor ceiling heights;

·      Reduction in the floor to ceiling height of the second floor addition

·      Reduction in length, increase front setback from the front (north) and increase in eastern side setback by deleting the proposed lift.

 

The amended plans received by Council on 6 October incorporating the above amendments are the subject of this assessment.

 

Site

 

The subject site sits on the southern side of Cuzco Street. The site is sloping in nature rising from the front (northern boundary) to the rear (southern boundary) as well as sloping sideways rising from east to west. The difference between the spot levels at the front and rear are approximately 5.7m and the difference between the eastern side and western side of the site is approximately 1m. This topography is endemic to neighbouring properties to the east and west as well as other properties located on the southern side of Cuzco Street.

 

The subject site contains a garage level with terrace over at front and two storey dwelling behind. The neighbouring dwellings to the east and west are similarly configured except that the neighbouring property to the east at No. 43 Cuzco Street has a second storey addition setback from the front elevation of the dwelling.

 

A street (frontal) view of the subject site and neighbouring properties is shown below. Further below an excerpt of the proposed development is shown amongst the neighbouring dwellings.

 

Photo 1: Street view of subject site (existing ridge to RL 40.92) and neighbouring properties to the east (left) and west (right). Note: The front of the subject site at street level is approximately 1m above the neighbouring property to the east at No. 43 Cuzco Street.

 

 

Figure 1 | Streetscape view of proposed development (as amended) and neighbouring developments at No. 43 Cuzco Street at left and No. 39 Cuzco Street at right (currently under construction).

 

Key Issues

 

1.  Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012)

 

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

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

 

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

 

Zoning:

 

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

Height of Building (Max) CL. 4.3(2) of RLEP 2012

9.5m

10.67m (12.3%)

No*

 

Floor Space Ratio (Max) CL. 4.4(2) of RLEP 2012

0.75:1

0.83:1 (10.6%)

 

No*

 

*See exceptions to these development standards below.

 

1.1     Clause 4.6 Request to vary the development standard for Height of buildings under Clause 4.3 (2) of the RLEP 2012

Clause 4.6 of RLEP provides a mechanism for variation to development standards in certain circumstances. The proposal contravenes the 9.5m maximum Building Height development standard of Clause 4.3(2) 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:

 

1.1.2  Clause 4.3(2) Building Height of the RLEP 2012

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

 

 

Height and variance

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal – Building

10.67 along the front portion of the development along both eastern and western side elevations. Figure 1 shows the various heights of development along the eastern elevation.

Figure 2 shows the various heights of the development along the western elevation.

Excess above RLEP Standard

12.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 | Eastern elevation demonstrating 10.67m overall height (along the front half of the development), the point at which it achieves a 9.5m height and the 7.25 metres height above the rear yard level.

 

Figure 4 | Western elevation showing a 9.8m maximum building height (along the front half of the development) and the point at which it achieves a 9.5m height limit running down to a height of 7.25m at the rear.

 

Request to vary development standard

 

The applicant has submitted a written request (received by Council 9 July 2015) seeking to justify the contravention of the maximum height standard contained in clause 4.3 (2A) of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

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

 

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

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

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by 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 height standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

3D View of proposed development from Cuzco Street.

 

Assessment comments:

The proposed development exceeds the maximum permissible building height along the side eastern and western elevations at the front portion of the development. – as shown above in Figures 3 & 4.

 

The main consideration is whether the additional height will continue to satisfactorily achieve the objectives for the standard and the zone in which it sites that is the R2 Low Density Residential zone. These objectives have been identified earlier and will not be repeated here. Notwithstanding, the key aspects of the objectives relate to whether or not the proposed height represents a good planning outcome having regard to Streetscape character and neighbours amenity. Having regard to these key issues an assessment is carried out as follows:

 

Streetscape character:

The non-complying elements are substantially setback from the front building line of the main dwelling as well as the side elevations of the existing dwelling and will not dominate or be immediately noticeable from street level. From the front of the site, the overall scale and massing will not be dissimilar to the scale of the existing upper level addition at No. 43 Cuzco Street. It is also noted that this side of Cuzco Street also contains relatively large scale developments at No. 39 and 37 Cuzco Street.

 

Overall, having regard to streetscape character the proposed height of the development will complement the existing and likely character achieving a good planning outcome as far as the objectives of the standard and the zone are concerned.

 

Neighbour’s amenity:

Another key objective of the standard and the zone seeks to minimise amenity impacts on neighbouring properties. These amenity impacts include Overshadowing, visual amenity and view loss.

 

Overshadowing

In relation to overshadowing, the site is configured on a north-south axis where the non-complying portion is located at the northern side of the site which means that overshadowing is predominately shared between the two neighbouring properties at No. 39 and 43 Cuzco Street and not to the detriment of any single neighbouring property. Further, the rear part of the development has a two storey scale which is well below the height standard and not inconsistent with the scale and bulk of other developments along this side of Cuzco Street. In relation to the neighbour’s property adjoining at the southern rear boundary the proposed development will not result in any significant overshadowing during the Winter Solstice.

 

Visual amenity

In relation to visual amenity, the proposed upper level is setback from the front and as indicated earlier will not dominate the dwelling or the streetscape. In relation to the side elevations the proposed upper level is substantially setback from the side elevations with only the stair component at the south-western elevation sited closest to the existing western elevation.

 

It is also important to note that the side elevations of neighbouring dwellings have similarly massed walls along their eastern and western side elevations ensuring  similar outlook from each of the neighbouring dwellings.

 

In relation to the rear neighbouring properties, the rear half of the development presents for most intents and purposes presents as a two storey development which is generally consistent with the predominant built form along the rear of properties along this side of Cuzco Street. The development at the rear is setback from the rear boundary and will not result in any adverse visual amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

View loss

In relation to view loss, an assessment of view loss is contained within a later section of this report, which assesses the level of view loss associated with the development from a neighbouring property at the rear at No. 36 Edgecliffe Avenue South Coogee. In brief the proposed development will result in acceptable levels of view loss from the rear elevation of the approved development at of No. 36 Edgecliffe Avenue and will satisfy the objectives for view sharing. It is noted that there is the possibility to reduce the overall height of the development by 200mm by a reduction in the second floor level floor-to-ceiling height from 2600mm down to 2400mm. The BCA requires a minimum of 2400mm for habitable rooms. However, the reduction of the floor to ceiling height would reduce the amenity within the proposed level without any appreciable benefits of visual amenity, solar access or views being retained from the neighbouring properties.

 

Overall, the assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception to the height standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012 can be summarised as follows:

 

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

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

·        The proposal continues to be well-articulated and the non-compliance will not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity or solar access enjoyed by neighbouring properties to the east, west or south;

·        The breach of the height limit does not create an inconsistency with the objectives of the zone having particular regard to the height of developments along this side of Cuzco Street.

·        The proposal does not affect the minimum standards for several amenity-based controls including landscaping, site coverage and deep soil areas; and

·        The distribution of additional floor area above the existing has been designed to sit within the existing roof and to be scaled in a similar fashion to the existing upper level addition at No. 43 Cuzco Street.

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposed overall building height will be satisfactory. The variation will enable a good level of amenity within the development that will not have any significant or unreasonable impact on streetscape and will continue to achieve the relevant objectives of both the standard and the zone. In this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable. 

 

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

The portion of the building that breaches the height limit, is a consequence of the localised low points at the front half of the site which is an inherent characteristic of the properties along this side of Cuzco Street where other dwellings exhibit similar wall and overall heights to that being proposed. The proposed upper level has been located away from the main front elevation and mostly from all side elevations ensuring minimal impact on the streetscape character and ensuring acceptable impacts on surrounding properties having regard to view sharing, solar access and visual amenity. The breach in the height does not result in a building that will be unreasonable with the size and scale of buildings that already exist along this side of Cuzco Street or those that are subject to a merit assessment against the objectives of the Standard, the zone or the building external wall height control under the RDCP 2013.

The applicant’s written request and accompanying documentation (inclusive of amended plans) are considered to have successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

carried out?

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·             To protect the amenity of residents.

·             To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to improve functionality within the site, minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring properties and maintaining the streetscape character. The proposed built form serves to provide a development that is consistent with the existing and likely 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.

 

 

 

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Floor space Ratio (FSR)

 

1.2     Clause 4.6 Request to vary the development standard for Floor Space Ratio under Clause 4.4 (2A) of the RLEP 2012

The proposal contravenes the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) development standard of Clause 4.4(2A) 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:

 

1.2.2  Clause 4.4(2A) Floor Space Ratio of the RLEP 2012

The proposed variation to the maximum floor space ratio standard is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Height and variance

Development Standard

0.75:1 (site area: 363.7sqm)

Proposal

0.82:1

It is noted that the garage level storage area which accounts for 12sqm or 0.03 of the floor space ratio is included in the Floor area ratio.

Excess above RLEP Standard

10.6%. Note: if the garage storage area is not included the variation is reduced down to 5.3%.

Table 2: Variation to the FSR standard

 

Request to vary development standard

The applicant has submitted a written request (received by Council 5 June 2015) seeking to justify the contravention of the maximum height standard contained in clause 4.3 (2A) of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. It is noted that a further amendment (received 22 September 2015) deleting the lift at the front of the development only reduces the floor area by only that horizontal element leading from the lift and not the vertical lift which is not defined as floor area under the RLEP 2012.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by 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 floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4 (2A) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Assessment comments:

The proposed development exceeds the maximum floor space ratio standard as a result of the upper level addition. The main considerations are whether the additional floor area, accounting for 25.5sqm across the whole of the site, satisfies the key objectives of the standard and the R2 zone.

 

The R2 Low Density Residential zone objectives have been identified earlier and will not be repeated here. Notwithstanding, the key objectives of both the standard and the zone relate to whether or not the proposed floor area above that allowed for under the RLEP 2012 and its distribution represents a good planning outcome having regard to future streetscape character, well-articulated built form and ensuring 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.

 

Having regard to the key elements within the standard and zone objectives, an assessment is carried out as follows:

 

Streetscape character

As indicated in the preceding section of this report, the proposed bulk of the development is setback from the front and sides and will present as subordinate built form to the main bulk of the levels below. It is also noted that the garage storage area is calculated as floor area despite the fact that it isn’t visible from street level which suggests that the degree to which the proposal exceeds the FSR standard is much less evident from street level and surrounding sites. Further, the proposed upper level is not dissimilar to the upper level addition at No. 43 Cuzco Street as shown in figure 1 at the beginning of this report.

 

Numerically, the proposed developments floor space ratio (0.82:1) is also not dissimilar to the floor area of neighbouring dwellings such that No. 39 Cuzco Street has a floor space ratio of 0.85:1 and the development at No. 43 Cuzco Street has a floor space ratio of 0.77:1.

 

Overall, in terms of streetscape character, the proposed development maintains a size and scale that relates to and has been designed to integrate with the rising topography of the site from street level up to the rear. The proposed additional floor area will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape and built form along Cuzco Street.

 

Articulation          

The proposed development is well articulated providing areas of functional living space using a mix of materials and greater side setbacks limiting adverse impacts associated with bulk and scale.

 

Amenity of neighbouring properties

Having regard to the context of the site and the surrounding area, the proposal will not result in any obtrusive elements or result in any significant adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Overshadowing

The proposed bulk and scale will not result in any unreasonable or inordinate levels of overshadowing on the adjoining or neighbouring properties.

 

Visual amenity

The proposed rear elevation presents as a two storey scale at the rear which is similar to the scale of the neighbouring dwellings at No. 39 and 43 Cuzco Street. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development sits higher than the development at No. 43 Cuzco Street it is largely a consequence of the natural topography of land rather than any inordinate bulk or massing.

Privacy

The proposed upper level addition and openings are set well away from the adjoining and neighbouring properties ensuring visual and acoustic privacy objectives will be satisfied.

 

View sharing

The proposed development does not result in any unreasonable loss of views from neighbouring properties. A more detailed assessment having regard to the RDCP 2013 objectives and controls is carried out further below. In brief, there are no high quality rearward views from the approved development at No. 36 Edgecliffe Avenue that will unreasonably be affected by the proposed development. There will also be ocean views that are retained from their first floor level in an easterly direction and a south easterly direction from the side, rear and front elevations of their approved first floor level.

 

Overall, with respect to the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the objectives of the R2 Low density zone, it is considered that the applicant has appropriately justified that the strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of the case ensuring a sustainable development and a good planning outcome.

 

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

As discussed above, the proposal achieves the planning objectives for the locality and sits comfortably within the residential character of Cuzco Street. At the same time, it is considered that the proposal will not set an undesirable precedent for similar contraventions of the development standard.

 

In summary, 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 aims of the RLEP 2012 in that additional floor space will be provided on the subject site will improve amenity of the occupants of the subject site and not result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining or neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed development is also considered to be consistent with, and will not contravene the zone objectives of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in which the site is located, in that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it represents an orderly use of the site. The development does not contravene the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential.

 

Council delegation exercising concurrence function for development that contravenes a development standard is subject to:

 

(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 assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4), it is considered that the:

 

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, duplexes, attached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and the like, where such development does not unreasonably compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the character of neighbouring development.

 

The variation from the adherence to the floor space ratio 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.

 

Overall, the applicant’s written justification for contravening the floor space ratio standard is considered to be well founded and supportable; and the resultant layout is considered to be suitable for the site.

 

Clause 6.7 Foreshore scenic protection area

Clause 6.7 of RLEP and Part B10 of the RDCP 2013 require Council to be satisfied that the development within the foreshore 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 it contributes to the scenic quality of the coastal foreshore.

 

The proposed upper level addition is setback from the front and side elevations, is well articulated using modern materials and will not result in any inordinate massing, bulk or scale that will fit in with the contemporary scenic quality of the foreshore area.

 

View sharing assessment Section 5.6 of the RDCP 2013

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss resulting from the proposal is reasonable, an indication of the direction of view (shown in aerial photo 2 below) and the view analysis from the approved development at No. 36 Edgecliffe Avenue Coogee are shown in photos 3 and 4 below.

 

Direction of view

 

The aerial photo below shows the direction of view from the rear of No 36 Edgecliffe Avenue. The view line runs across the rear south-eastern corner of the approved and currently being constructed development at No. 39 Cuzco Street (see photo 3 further below) and the front north western corner of the development at No. 43 Cuzco Street.

 

Aerial photo 2: direction of view from approved first floor development at NO. 36 Edgecliffe Avenue

 

View analysis

Photo position

As the approval for 36 Edgecliffe Avenue has not been constructed, a photo (photo 3) taken from the top of the rear boundary wall of the view across the site. The top of the boundary wall has a similar level to the approved first floor level – photo 2.

 

Photo 2 (taken 24 August 2015) of rear boundary wall at 36 Edgecliffe Avenue. This wall has a level that is similar to the approved first floor level at 36 Edgecliffe Avenue (DA/154/2008).

View assessment – quality of view and extent of impact

 

Photo 3 below shows the view from the top of rear boundary wall at 36 Edgecliffe Avenue. There are no views of the ocean or interfacing land elements from the ground level or from the rear elevation of No. 36 Edgecliffe due to the fact that the rear south eastern comer of no. 39 Cuzco Street overlaps the existing upper level addition at No. 43 Cuzco Street which both rise above the horizon. It is further noted that the existing ridge height of the subject dwelling at No. 41 Cuzco Street already sits above the horizon level.

 

Photo 3 (taken 27 October 2015) view from top of rear boundary wall at the right hand (taken 27 October 2015).

 

Retention of views

The views across to the east and south east will be retained as shown in photos 4 and 5 below. These views are more expansive and of higher quality.

 

 

Photos 4: Easterly view from top of rear boundary wall

 

 

 

Photo 5: South easterly view from rear of boundary wall

 

Reasonableness of development.

Although the proposed development exceeds the floor space ratio and building height standards, they have been suitably justified in the applicants Clause 4.6 exceptions to the development standard.

 

Notwithstanding, the fundamental question is whether the proposal should be amended given the value and quality of the views affected and retained. One must also have regard to the extent and distance to the view and the visibility or prominence of the view and from where it is obtained (its context). Having regard to these matters, the view towards the subject site is obstructed by the existing developments at No. 39 and 43 Cuzco Street. The views across the site are of very little interest when compared with the views that will be retained to the east and south east. Moreover, the adjoining developments height and location and the limited direction of views suggests that there would be no appreciable improvement of views if the development were made to comply with the FSR or height standard.

 

The proposed development is considered to be a reasonable design response to the site conditions and the context of neighbouring developments. It distributes floor area that is consistent with the distribution of built form and in particular the massing that is exhibited within developments at both No. 39 and No. 43 Cuzco Street.

 

Given the above circumstances, it is considered that the resultant view loss is considered to be acceptable.

 

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:

 

36 Edgecliffe Avenue, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed development substantially exceeds the FSR under the new RLEP 2012

Noted, see discussion of FSR under key issues section of this report.

The proposed development substantially exceeds the height restriction under the new RLEP 2012

Noted see assessment under key issues section below relating to Height of Buildings

The bulk of the building is not in keeping with the streetscape. The building will be 4 storeys high.

The proposed development as amended has been reduced in height and its setbacks increased ensuring its massing and bulk will not be inconsistent with that of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed upper level is in line with the upper level at the neighbouring property at No. 43 Cuzco Street. The proposed upper level remains subservient to the massing of the front elevation of the dwelling in a similar fashion to the upper level of No. 43 Cuzco Street. See key issues section of this report for further discussion.

The proposed development will result in additional overshadowing during the winter solstice

The proposed development does not result in any significant additional overshadowing to the objectors property at the rear and will not result in non-compliance with Council’s minimum requirements for solar access to neighbouring properties during the winter solstice. Further, the proposed development at the rear presents for most intents and purposes as a two storey scale which is not dissimilar to the scale and massing of developments at the rear of properties along this side of Cuzco Street –see plan excerpt below.

 

Figure 2 | Excerpt of rear elevation showing a two storey scale.

Impedes our view to the east

Noted see discussion of view loss under key issues section of this report.

Slight loss of privacy

The proposed window line is approximately 18m from the rear boundary which is considered to be adequate separation for the purposes of reasonable privacy protection.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The applicant has provided reasonable planning arguments that the proposed increase in height and additional floor area will result in a built form across the site, whilst exceeding the numerical standards, will nevertheless achieve consistency with the objectives for both the standards and the R2 Low density zone. The scheme is reasonable in the context of these planning objectives and the likely future character of the low density residential area along Cuzco Street which is located within the foreshore scenic protection area.

       

Overall, the proposal responds well to both the streetscape and neighbouring properties providing articulation within the building as well as adequate separation minimising impacts such as privacy intrusion, overshadowing and view loss are considered acceptable.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 237/2015 for Alterations and new upper level addition to the existing dwelling house, at No. 41 Cuzco Street, South Coogee subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 41 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D76/15

 

Subject:                  36 Burke Street, Chifley (DA/130/2012/C)

Folder No:               DA/130/2012/C

Author:                    Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the hours of operation of the child care centre from 8:30am-5:00pm to 7:00am-6:00pm on Monday to Friday

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Jane's Place Operations Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Mr R Strugarevic and Mrs M Strugarevic

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original application was approved by Council. 

 

1.  Proposal

 

The application proposes to increase the hours of operation of the existing child care

centre from 8:30am-5:00pm to 7:00am-6:00pm on Monday to Friday.

 

2.  Site

 

The subject site is located on the north western corner of Burke Street and Hume Street intersection in Chifley. The site is currently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling house with a double garage accessed from Burke Street.  The site has an area of 545.7m2 and is irregular in shape.

 

Chifley Public School & Matraville Sports High School is located opposite the site on Burke Street. The surrounding area is otherwise residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey dwelling houses.

 

Figure 1: View of the subject site from Hume Street.

 

3.  Site History

 

DA/130/2012

A development application was approved by Ordinary Council on 24 July 2012 for the conversion of an existing dwelling house to a child care centre for 36 children including associated alterations and additions to the building with operating hours of Monday to Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.

 

DA/130/2012/A

Section 96 application was approved under delegated authority on 17 September 2012 seeking to modify the approved development by altering the configuration of the approved child care centre.

 

DA/130/2012/B

Section 96 application was approved by Planning Committee on 13 August 2013 for amendment to the Plan of Management, to increase number of children permitted to play outside from 20 to 36 and to alter period of time permitted to play outside and to allow playing of non-amplified music outside. 

 

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. No submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

5.  S.96 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 have been complied with:

 

5.1     Substantially the Same Development:

Modification to the approved development does not significantly alter the nature of the approved development and the proposed changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which consent was granted for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The modification consists of changes to the approved operating hours, thus the works remain consistent with the original consent. 

 

6.  S.79C Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Refer to Part 6.1 of this report.

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

Nil.

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

Refer to Part 6.2 of this report.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

No submission was received for this proposal.

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

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

 

 

6.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

The following clause of RLEP 2012 is relevant to the proposed development:

 

Zone R2 Low Density Residential 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed modifications are permissible with Council's consent. The proposed Child Care Centre will continue to integrate with, and support the primary function of the zone to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment to enable other land uses that provide facilities or service 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 and to protect the amenity of residents.   

 

The proposed modifications, subject to attached conditions, will maintain the amenity of the adjoining residents and nearby residential zones and continue to provide a facility for the local community where there is a demand/need for child care centres. 

 

Overall, the proposal is not considered to detract from the general aims and zoning objectives as stated in the Randwick LEP.

 

6.2 Development Control Plans:

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013

Part D11 – Child Care Centres

The proposed modification has been assessed against Part D11 of the DCP and is regarded satisfactory with the objectives and controls for operating hours of child care centre. The proposed hours comply with the operating hours as indicated in the general guide, which states that the hours of operation for child care centres in residential zones should not extend beyond the core hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm. Notwithstanding this, additional condition to amend the Plan of Management to incorporate recommendations as suggested by the acoustic report is to be included in the consent to maintain the amenity of the adjoining residential properties, refer to Part 7.1 of this report. The proposed hours are considered to be reasonable and its impact to the locality and the environment will be minimised. 

7.  Referral

 

7.1     Environmental Health

The proposed extension to operating hours has been considered based on the information provided in RSA Acoustic report no:  150371R1 dated 22 September 2015 titled: “Noise Impact Assessment Proposed Extension Of Hours Child Care Centre 36 Burke Street Chifley”. Recommendations are provided in the acoustic report and it is recommended an amended plan of management be required adopting those measures prior to commencement of use.

 

The following condition is recommended:

 

1.       An amended plan of management shall be prepared and incorporate relevant operational conditions of the  RSA Acoustic report no:  150371R1 dated 22 September 2015 titled : “Noise Impact Assessment Proposed Extension Of Hours Child Care Centre 36 Burke Street Chifley”. The plan shall include but not be limited to all operational recommendations including use of mechanical plant and be reviewed by the acoustic consultant as complying with recommended measures. The plan shall be submitted for approval to Council prior to commencement of use.

 

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

 

Modification of the approved development generally satisfies Randwick LEP 2012 objectives of the zone and the proposed hours comply with the controls and objectives of Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 Part D11 for Child Care Centres. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the attached conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify approved Development Application No. DA/130/2012/C by increasing the hours of operation of the child care centre from 8:30am-5:00pm to 7:00am-6:00pm on Monday to Friday at No. 36 Burke Street, Chifley, subject to the following conditions:

 

·          Amend Condition No. 37 to read:

Hours of operation

37.   The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to:

 

Monday through to Friday, inclusive from: 7:00am to 6:00pm.

 

Add the following Condition:

49.   An amended plan of management shall be prepared and incorporate relevant operational conditions of the  RSA Acoustic report no:  150371R1 dated 22 September 2015 titled: “Noise Impact Assessment Proposed Extension Of Hours Child Care Centre 36 Burke Street Chifley”. The plan shall include but not be limited to all operational recommendations including use of mechanical plant and be reviewed by the acoustic consultant as complying with recommended measures. The plan shall be submitted for approval to Council prior to commencement of use.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D77/15

 

Subject:                  91 Paine Street, Maroubra (DA/1/2008/A)

Folder No:               DA/1/2008/A

Author:                    Olivia Yana, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the hours of operation of the child care centre from 8:30am to 5:00pm to 7:00am to 6:00pm on Monday to Friday

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Jane's Place Operations Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Mr P L Baker

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original application was approved by Council. 

 

 

 

1.  Proposal

 

The application proposes to increase the hours of operation of the existing child care

centre from 8:30am-5:00pm to 7:00am-6:00pm on Monday to Friday.

2.  Site

 

The subject site is located on the south-western corner of Walsh Avenue and Paine Street in Maroubra. The site has an area of 537.9m2 and is generally rectangular in shape with the Paine Street frontage being 14.325m, the rear boundary being 15.95m and side boundaries of 37.14m and 37.010m.

 

The property abuts Nagle Park to the rear and a stormwater canal is located between the site and Walsh Avenue.

 

South Sydney Boys High School is located opposite the site on Walsh Avenue. The surrounding area is otherwise residential in character and consists predominantly of single and two storey dwellings.

 

Figure 1: View of the subject site

 

3.  Site History

 

DA/1/2008

A development application was approved by Planning Committee on 10 June 2008 for the conversion of existing dwelling house into child care centre for 36 children with operating hours of Monday to Friday, 8:30am -5:00pm.

 

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. No submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

5.  S.96 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 have been complied with:

 

 

 

5.1     Substantially the Same Development:

Modification to the approved development does not significantly alter the nature of the approved development and the proposed changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which consent was granted for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The modification consists of changes to the approved operating hours, thus the works remain consistent with the original consent. 

 

6.  S.79C Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Refer to Part 6.1 of this report.

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

Nil.

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

Refer to Part 6.2 of this report.

 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

No submission was received for this proposal.

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

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

 

6.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

The following clause of RLEP 2012 is relevant to the proposed development:

 

Zone R2 Low Density Residential 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposed modifications are permissible with Council's consent. The proposed Child Care Centre will continue to integrate with, and support the primary function of the zone to provide for the housing needs of the community within a low density residential environment to enable other land uses that provide facilities or service 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 and to protect the amenity of residents.   

 

The proposed modifications, subject to attached conditions, will maintain the amenity of the adjoining residents and nearby residential zones and continue to provide a facility for the local community where there is a demand/need for child care centres. 

 

Overall, the proposal is not considered to detract from the general aims and zoning objectives as stated in the Randwick LEP.

 

6.2 Development Control Plans:

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013

Part D11 – Child Care Centres

The proposed modification has been assessed against Part D11 of the DCP and is regarded satisfactory with the objectives and controls for operating hours of child care centre. The proposed hours comply with the operating hours as indicated in the general guide, which states that the hours of operation for child care centres in residential zones should not extend beyond the core hours of 7:00am and 7:00pm. Notwithstanding this, additional condition to amend the Plan of Management to incorporate recommendations as suggested by the acoustic report is to be included in the consent to protect the amenity of the adjoining residential properties, refer to Part 7.1 of this report. The proposed hours are considered to be reasonable and its impact to the locality and the environment will be minimised. 

 

7.  Referral

 

7.1     Environmental Health

The proposed extension to operating hours has been considered based on the information provided in RSA Acoustic report no:  150370R1 dated 22 September 2015 titled: “Noise Impact Assessment Proposed Extension Of Hours Child Care Centre 91 Paine Street Maroubra”. Recommendations are provided in the acoustic report and it is recommended an amended plan of management be required adopting those measures prior to commencement of use.

 

The following condition is recommended:

 

1.       An amended plan of management shall be prepared and incorporate relevant operational conditions of the  RSA Acoustic report no:  150370R1 dated 22 September 2015 titled: “Noise Impact Assessment Proposed Extension Of Hours Child Care Centre 91 Paine Street Maroubra”. The plan shall include but not be limited to all operational recommendations including use of mechanical plant and be reviewed by the acoustic consultant as complying with recommended measures. The plan shall be submitted for approval to Council prior to commencement of use.

 

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

 

Modification of the approved development generally satisfies Randwick LEP 2012 objectives of the zone and the proposed hours comply with the controls and objectives of Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 Part D11 for Child Care Centres. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the attached conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify approved Development Application No. DA/1/2008/A by increasing the hours of operation of the child care centre from 8:30am-5:00pm to 7:00am-6:00pm on Monday to Friday at No. 91 Paine Street, Maroubra, subject to the following conditions:

 

·          Amend Condition 7 to read:

7.     The hours of the operation of the business are restricted to:

 

Monday – Friday:      7:00am – 6:00pm

 

·          Add the following Condition:

47.   An amended plan of management shall be prepared and incorporate relevant operational conditions of the  RSA Acoustic report no:  150370R1 dated 22 September 2015 titled: “Noise Impact Assessment Proposed Extension Of Hours Child Care Centre 91 Paine Street Maroubra”. The plan shall include but not be limited to all operational recommendations including use of mechanical plant and be reviewed by the acoustic consultant as complying with recommended measures. The plan shall be submitted for approval to Council prior to commencement of use.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D78/15

 

Subject:                  1094-1118 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/583/2015)

Folder No:               DA/583/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Removal of the existing roof parapet, construction of new metal roof structure and installation of photovoltaic panels on rooftop (Clause 4.6: Variation to height control)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Owners of the Strata Plan No. SP69371

Owner:                    Owners of the Strata Plan No. SP69371

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview15059.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed building height exceeds the standard under Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%. 

Proposal

 

Removal of the existing roof parapet, construction of new metal sheet roofing structure and installation of photovoltaic panels on rooftop.

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as ‘Duffy’s Corner’ or 1094-1118 Anzac Parade, Maroubra and formally described as Lot 100 DP1047596 (being Lots 1-61 in SP69371). The subject site is irregular in shape with a total site area of 4,767sqm and has a western frontage to Anzac Parade of approximately 92.98 metres, a northern frontage to Beauchamp Road of approximately 41.26 metres, an eastern boundary of approximately 85.72m, and a southern boundary of approximately 59.68 metres.  

 

The subject site is relatively flat with an existing three storey shop top housing development comprising of 9 shops at the ground floor level, 52 dwellings at the ground and upper floor levels and a basement parking to accommodate 94 vehicles, bicycle area, garbage and store room.  

 

Neighbouring to the north are existing three storey housing commission developments on the intersection of Beauchamp Road and Anzac Parade, to the east are existing single storey low density residential developments, and to the south is an existing Buddhist temple followed by single storey dwelling houses and St. Spyridon College High School. The immediate locality consists of a mixture of uses including low to medium density residential uses, commercial and educational establishments. The subject site is located on a State road managed by the Roads and Maritime Services.   

 

Figure 1: Subject Site

 

Submissions

 

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

 

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2013:

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1:1

No change.

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5 metres

10.43 metres – 11.6 metres

No*

*see exception to development standard below

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards – Floor Space Ratios (Cl4.4(2) of RLEP 2012

 

Height of Buildings

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

 

Proposed height of building

Maximum 11.6 metres of the southern building block and maximum 11.22 metres of the northern building block

Permissible height of building

9.5 metres

Height of building exceeding LEP control

2.1 metres (18% departure of the Council control)

 

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 Department of Planning and Environment must also be obtained for development that contravenes a development standard. However, pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence 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 Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed in certain cases.

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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?

 

1.       Consistency with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard in the LEP objectives:

 

2.       The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposal complies with the above objective for the following reasons:

 

·      The construction of the new hipped roof form to the northern and southern building blocks will generally remain consistent with the building height plane of the northern adjacent development comprising of a series of three storey residential flat developments occupying 1070-1076 Anzac Parade and 326-366 Beauchamp Road.

·      The development will provide a seamless transition between the buildings without contributing to any unreasonable visual bulk and scale of the development. The roof addition is not discernible from a southerly viewing aspect given the significant frontage width of the allotment at no. 326-366 Beauchamp Road and the scattered building block layout of the three storey developments which establishes consistency to the height of buildings within the immediate streetscape.

·      The established visual catchment is mostly appreciated from the south in a one way only direction along Anzac Parade. The character of the streetscape comprises of low scale single and two storey detached dwelling houses to larger scaled three storey built forms with the height of buildings becoming more apparent towards the intersection of Anzac Parade and Beauchamp Road. At the intersection the hipped roof element does not appear out of character within the local site context of the adjoining development.

·      The form and massing of the development is commiserate to the two three storey nature of the adjacent premises.  

 

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

 

Assessment:

The subject site is not located in close proximity to any adjoining heritage items or heritage conservation areas and will remain suitably scaled within the existing streetscape.

 

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

 

Assessment:

The non-compliance to the maximum height of buildings development standard will not result in any significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The development will not result in any adverse visual bulk and scale impacts to the neighbouring dwellings in that the development will maintain a consistent building height plane to the adjoining dwellings. The size and scale of the new upper floor level will remain compatible with the height of buildings within the existing streetscape in particular those to the 

·      The proposal is expected to contribute to additional overshadowing impacts to the north facing window openings of the southern neighbour at no. 1120 Anzac Parade, Maroubra. However, the extent of the overshadowing impacts is acceptable given the adjacent premises is an existing place of public worship and subsequently does not comprise of any habitable room windows or living rooms with a northerly aspect. The north-easterly facing bedroom window at the rear of the site at no. 1120 Anzac Parade will maintain the required three hours of direct solar access during the early morning and late afternoon periods between the hours of 8am – 4pm. The development will continue to comply with Clause 5.1: Solar Access of Overshadowing as prescribed within the RDCP2013.

·      The proposed development does not involve the installation of any new window openings and will maintain a reasonable level of privacy to the adjacent neighbours to the east and the south.

·      The immediately adjoining dwellings and the public domain do not presently enjoy any significant scenic or city skyline views and therefore the new upper floor level will not contribute to any view loss impacts.   

 

The minor breach to the building height requirement does not give rise to any significant adverse amenity impacts and satisfies sub-clause 2(c) of Clause 4.3(1) for Height of Buildings.

 

2.     Consistency with the objectives of the B1: Neighbourhood Centre

 

        Objectives of zone:

 

·       To provide for a range of small- scale retail, business and community uses that serve the needs of people who live or work in the surrounding neighbourhood.

·       To enable residential development is well-integrated with, and supports the primary business function of, the zone.

·       To minimise the impact of development and protect the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones.

 

Assessment:

The construction of a new hipped roof form and installation of the photovoltaic cells located on the rooftop is in keeping with the objectives within an B1: Neighbourhood Centre. The roof form will continue to serve the uses of the small-scale retail and business uses at the ground floor level and the residential development at the upper floor levels. Further, the proposed roof form which results in an increase above the maximum permissible building height will not compromise the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. The hipped roof and solar panels will not contribute to any adverse overshadowing impacts to the adjacent premises given the existing use to the south, the development will not compromise privacy levels to the southern and eastern neighbours and will not contribute to any excessive visual bulk and scale impacts given the compatibility with the building heights of the adjacent buildings. The new roof addition will generally retain the desired built form character within the streetscape and is not expected to contribute to any adverse environmental impacts to the residents.

 

3.       Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

Assessment: None applicable.

 

4.       The variation for a better planning outcome

Assessment: The design scheme maintains the three storey scale which will remain consistent with the three storey developments within the immediate streetscape. The additional building height does not form a detracting feature that compromises the streetscape character and the development will generally remain compatible with the built form presentation within the existing streetscape. As prescribed above, the variation to the height of buildings development standards will not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings or within the streetscape and demonstrate a compliant development in terms of solar access, visual privacy and views.

 

5.       There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

The following assessment demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the height of buildings variation:

 

·      The degree of the non-compliance varies across the two building block form with a breach of between 925mm to 1400mm of the northern building block and between 1400mm to 2015mm of the southern building block. However, it should be considered that the existing parapet roof height exceeds the maximum permissible building height control by 440mm to the northern block and 1025mm from the southern block. The further breach and areas of non-compliance is not considered to be significant and would visually compromise the appearance of the development within the existing streetscape. The proposal will maintain a similar height of buildings as the adjacent developments to the north and the three storey built forms within the immediate locality.  

 

·      The hipped roof form will continue to respect the topography of the site with a minor fall from the north to south. The roof form is stepped with the southern building block proposing a lower roof pitch given it is located on the low side of the subject site as opposed to the northern building block. The visual presentation of the development is acceptable in that the development does not concentrate the structural mass on the uphill or downhill side of the allotment. 

 

·      The development does not contribute to any significant overshadowing impacts to the adjacent neighbours. Most of the additional overshadowing will fall on the north-facing windows of the southern neighbour which currently has Council approval for a place of public worship. The north-facing windows are not directly adjacent to any habitable room windows of a dwelling and subsequently will comply with the controls of Clause 5.1: Solar Access of the RDCP2013. The roof top addition is acceptable and does not give rise to any adverse shadowing impacts to the adjacent development.

 

·      The hipped roof form will provide for a reasonable level of amenity to the adjacent developments. The new roof form will not compromise existing visual privacy levels to the adjacent neighbour; will not result in a loss of views from the surrounding developments and the bulk and scale of the development will establish a suitable scale to the street.

 

·      The development will continue to comply with the controls of roof forms within the RDCP2013 for Neighbourhood Centres in that the style and pitch of the hipped roof element will relate sympathetically to the adjacent developments. The roof element will remain compatible with the hipped roof forms to the north at no. 326-366 Beauchamp Road and the buildings immediately to the south. The roof addition will not be out-of-character within the existing streetscape and not form a detracting element along Anzac Parade.

 

6.       The Variation is within the Public Interest

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

 

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.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function 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 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 Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum allowable height of buildings in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical Height of Buildings 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 low density housing forms envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2012:

Part D6: Neighbourhood Centres

 

Clause 3.2: Roof Forms

The Council controls require that any new development comply with the controls of Clause 3.2: Roof forms of the RDCP2013. The relevant controls read as follows:

 

i)    In centres where parapet forms are prevalent, development should include parapets that reflect the rhythm, scale and detailing of existing parapets

ii)   Provide flat roofs where these prevail across the centre, unless the site conditions justify an alternative roof form (e.g. corner sites)

iii)  Design roof forms to generate a visually interesting skyline, while minimizing apparent bulk and potential for overshadowing. The style and pitch of new roofs should relate sympathetically to neighbouring buildings.

iv)  Relate roof forms to the size and scale of the building, the building elevation and the three dimensional building form

v)   Structures such as ventilation shafts, lift over-runs and service plants should be wholly contained within roof structures and does not project above the roof line.

 

The development will remain compliant with the above controls as prescribed within the RDCP2013. The proposed roof form is not considered to be a prominent element along Anzac Parade, given there are a number of developments that comprise of a similar size and scale in particular those immediately to the north which also comprise of similar sized hipped roof elements. The hipped roof form does not interrupt the presentation of streetscape given it is of a scale which maintains the continuity of the visual bulk and scale along Anzac Parade and the neighbouring dwellings (in particular those to the north) is not excessive that it would visually appear as a detracting element within the streetscape. Further, the additions are acceptable given the roof form is proposed across the entirety of the existing development and is located on a corner site which establishes visual interest from the streetscape. The subject site also benefits from the fact that it is not immediately attached to any adjacent shop top housing developments that may be typically characterized by low pitched skillion roof forms. The façade treatment will appropriately respond across the entirety of the site and reinforces the site as a corner element. The roof form is acceptable in complying with the controls for roof forms within the RDCP2013. 

Solar Panels:

The submitted elevation plans do not include any details of the submitted solar panels on the roof top. In considering the lack of information received, Council is unable to make a thorough assessment to this part of the development application. To ensure that the development does not result in any adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings, a condition of consent has been included that the solar panels must not have a reduced level to a maximum of RL42.45 to the southern building block and RL41.93 to the northern building block.

 

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 submitted Clause 4.6: Exceptions to the Development Standards is acceptable in that the development will remain consistent with the objectives of the B1: Neighbourhood Centre Zone, comply with the objectives of Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings and remains within the public interest. The proposal is acceptable in complying with Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impacts to the neighbouring developments.

 

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 clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/583/2015 for Removal of the existing roof parapet, construction of new metal roof structure and installation of photovoltaic panels on rooftop, at No. 1094-1118 Anzac Parade, Maroubra, subject to the following non-standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Non-Standard conditions

 

        Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)   Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, a BASIX certificate must be submitted and approved by Council to reflect the approved plans.

 

b)   Prior to the issue of a construction certificate, a cost summary report contained within Council’s DA checklist must be submitted and approved by Council to reflect a cost of works of $300,000.

 

c)   The solar panels must not exceed the reduced level of RL42.45 of the southern block and RL41.93 of the northern block.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 1094 - 1118 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D79/15

 

Subject:                  169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/238/1998/C)

Folder No:               DA/238/1998/C

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the number of patrons in the outdoor area from 35 to 48 and inclusion of fixed chairs, tables and umbrellas

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Kerrie Boylett

Owner:                    Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview18889.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Submissions have not shown on this map due to the distance of the area.

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillors Matson, Neilson and Shurey.

Proposal

 

The subject section 96 application seeks to modify the original development consent:

 

·      Increase the number of patrons in the outdoor area from 35 to 48

·      Installation of permanent street furnishings including 8 x table, chairs and umbrellas

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 1 DP 792311, no. 169-181 Dolphin Street, Coogee. The subject site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage width of approximately of 13.65 metres along Dolphin Street, a depth of 46.61 metres and an area of 1,587sqm. The premise is located on the northern side of Dolphin Street.

 

The subject site is currently occupied by a three storey food and drink premises known as the ‘Coogee Pavilion’. Neighbouring the premises to the south/east is Coogee Beach and the adjoining Council car park adjacent to Dolphin Street. To the north is a series of three and four storey shop top housing developments and beyond a mixture of mostly three and four storey residential flat buildings along Beach Street. To the west is a shop top housing development of varying storey heights. The immediate locality can be described mostly of commercial and medium density residential forming part of the Coogee Local Centre.  

 

 

Section 96(2) Amendment

 

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

 

Substantially the same development:

The section 96 modifications seeks to modify condition no. 26 to increase the number of patrons in the outdoor dining area from 35 to 48 persons. In addition to this, the modification aims to provide tables, chairs and umbrellas as permanent street furnishings within the designated outdoor dining area. The proposal involves modifications to conditions imposed as part of the original development consent and will remain substantially the same development.

 

Notification and consideration of submissions:

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed Section 96 modifications in accordance with the DCP for Public Notification. Refer to Submissions for further details.  

 

Consultation with relevant public authorities:

Eastern Suburbs Local Area Command:

Police have received application DA/238/1998/C for comment in regards to the Coogee Pavilion seeking to increase the number of patrons in the outdoor area from 35 patrons to 48 patrons.

 

Police have no objection to this modification, however Police do request that the premise be subject to a trial period of (6) six months. This will afford the business with the opportunity to demonstrate that they can operate in a manner which meets the communities, Police and Randwick City Council's expectations.

 

Planning Officer Comments: It is recommended that a trial period of (12) twelve months be included as it is possible that the proposed six (6) month period may be during winter seasonal period in which the full capacity of the outdoor dining area may not be appreciated. Consequently, a condition of consent has been included that a twelve month trial be included as part of any consent. 

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:-

 

·      5 Cairo Street, South Coogee

·      2/6 Mount Street, Coogee

·      83 Beach Street, Coogee 

·      B502/106 Brook Street, Coogee

·      Coogee Precinct Committee 

 

Issue:

·      The permanent street furniture including the tables, chairs and umbrellas will privatise the public space on the Council footpath and may result in public safety issues. 

Refer to Key Issues for detailed assessment. 

 

·      The proposed footpath dining area does not provide an unobstructed pedestrian access through Coogee.

 

The subject section 96 modification does not seek to enlarge the size of approved outdoor dining area as granted per the original development consent (DA/238/1998/C). The original was assessed and considered not to obstruct pedestrian access. Subsequently the development will not further compromise the pedestrian thoroughfare along Dolphin Street and the consent requires that the proposed street furniture be located wholly within the designated footpath dining area.

 

·      There are concerns the proposed outdoor dining area will merge with the adjacent tables and chairs located on the eastern side of the outdoor dining area. 

 

The subject section 96 application does not seek to use any existing public assets including the tables and chairs for exclusive use of the Coogee Pavilion. Any such use is outside the designated outdoor seating area and is in breach of the outdoor dining licensed area.   

 

·      The proposed footpath dining area is setback 4.2 metres from the existing commercial premises and is considered to be a significant separation in particular given the area between the outdoor dining area and the commercial premises will be used as trafficable area to cater for the outdoor dining area. 

 

The proposal does not seek to reposition the footpath dining area and the location is consistent with the original consent (DA/238/1998/C). The setback between the outdoor dining area and the commercial premises will remain unchanged.

 

·      The proposed outdoor dining area will impede access from emergency vehicles.

 

It should be noted that there is a restriction of vehicular access directly to the east of the subject site with multiple vehicular accesses provided along Beach, Arden and Dolphin Street to Coogee Beach. Notwithstanding this, there is an ample setback on the northern and southern side of the footpath dining area with a separation of approximately 4 metres to allow for vehicular access to enter into the pedestrian thoroughfare.  

 

Referral

 

·      Environmental Health Officer

 

Proposed Development:

Proposed outdoor dining for 48 patrons with service of alcohol

 

Comments:

 

Acoustics

Acoustics have been considered as part of this assessment. The proposal involves existing use of approved footway seating for 35 patrons increasing to 48.

 

The service of alcohol is proposed ancillary with a meal and has been conditioned as part of this report.

 

Given the proposed location and elevated background noise of the existing area and based on the proposed times of operation, it is considered a trial be implemented over a period.

 

Based on the existing operation and the proposed it is considered that appropriate conditions have been included in this report.

 

Additional Comments: Based on the information in the report and recent night inspections in the area the report is considered satisfactory in terms of providing supportive information to the proposal.

 

·      Property Officer

I have reviewed the proposed plans and whilst the proposed area is suitable from a licensing perspective, we are not supportive of fixed furniture. 2.4(ii) of the DCP (D12 refers to furniture that "can be easily removed at the close of business each day."

 

·      Development Engineering

A Section 96 application has been received which seeks to modify the approved development by increasing the number of patrons in the outdoor area from 35 to 48, changes to the furniture details and extension of the liquor licensed area to cover the outdoor dining area.

 

Original Consent: Outdoor seating and minor alterations to shop front of existing hotel

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Statement of Environmental Effects stamped by Council 7th September 2015

·      Outdoor Seating Plan Plan stamped by Council 8th August 2011

 

Footpath Dining Comments

A previous Section 96 application under DA/238/1998/B approved an area 5.60m x 8.50m located 4.20m from the building alignment.

 

The submitted plans indicate the licenced area is not proposed to be enlarged or shifted beyond what was approved with DA/238/1998/B and so it is unclear why the application form states it is seeking an extension of the licenced area.

 

It is also proposed to install semi-permanent furniture and seek an amendment to Council condition 17 requiring all furniture to be removed within 30mins of the close of business each day.

 

The assessing officer is advised that Development Engineering do not generally support the installation of permanent structures on Council property.

 

Should the semi-permanent type seating be approved / supported by Council a number of additional conditions will be required. The subject section of Dolphin Street has been finished with a mixture of clay pavers and polished masonry paving. Whilst the Coogee Beach Plaza development anticipated that this area could be suitable for outdoor dining no provision was made for installation of semi-permanent structures. The paving specification in this area is generally paving laid on a sand bedding and a fine crushed rock base. The fixing detail submitted with the development application makes reference to the seating and tables to be bolted into the ground (see Drawing DA X01 – Issue A). It is unlikely that bolting through a paver and into the fine crushed rock will be suitable to ensure the security of the seating from vandalism or extreme weather occurrences. The likely scenario is that the pavers will need to be removed and concrete pads installed – the bolts to secure the seating and tables would therefore be connected to the pads, (other options may be available subject to structural certification being submitted). Removal of the paving, installation of concrete pads (or other treatment) and relaying of pavers would need to be carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced contractor of Council’s nomination. All costs for these works would need to be met by the applicant.

 

Installation of suitable bases and fixings for the tables and seats may also require a more detailed investigation of existing services in the area.

 

The semi-permanent nature of the proposed seating and tables would need to be reflected in the public risk insurance provided by the licensee. Council would need to be satisfied that it is not taking on any potential liability given the structures will remain in place outside of the approved operating hours for the outdoor dining area.

 

Development Engineering recommends that the structures not be semi-permanent and this report reflects the recommendation. If support for the permanent seating / tables is to be given additional conditions will need to be provided. These conditions will relate to investigation of public utilities and approval for the design and subsequent provision of adequate fixing details prior to operation of the outdoor dining area.

 

Parking Comments

Council’s DCP-2013 effectively makes outdoor dining exempt from additional parking requirements. There are therefore no objections from Development Engineering to increased patron numbers within the licenced area provided subject to the above concerns on permanent structures.

 

No other amendments are generally required to engineering conditions however it is recommended that condition 24 be deleted as it is no longer applicable.

 

24.     The development consent is valid for a maximum period of seven (7) years from the date of determination. A new development application is to be lodged prior to the expiration of the development consent should the applicant\owner wish to continue to lease Council’s footpath for outdoor dining.

 

Planning Officer Comments: Council’s development engineering are concerned that the proposed semi-permanent furnishings will compromise the material finish of the paved surface adjacent to Dunningham and Goldstein Reserve. However, development engineering have advised that such concerns can be addressed through appropriate conditions of consent that the applicant must meet the full cost for Council to remove the furniture and reinstate the area to Council’s satisfaction should the licence agreement be terminated. Furthermore, it should be noted that the inclusion of semi-permanent furniture including tables, chairs and umbrellas is subject to a 12 month trial period which will be reviewed at the conclusion of this period for further consideration of potential amenity and noise issues that may arise.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2012

Section D12: Footpath Dining and Trading

 

In accordance with Council controls, Clause 2.4: Furniture and Fittings of the RDCP2013 prescribes that outdoor furniture must be safe and study, (but not bulky), waterproof and weather resistant, can easily be removed at the close of business each day, will not damage the footpath or other public infrastructure or pose a trip/fall hazard or inconvenience to the public. In addition to this, a prescriptive note is provided that fully enclosed café structures are not encouraged. This can privatise the public place which results in reduced accessibility, visibility, amenity and safety to the public.

 

The proposal in its current form does not comply with Council’s controls given the proposal includes the installation of fixed furniture including 8 tables, chairs and umbrellas within the outdoor dining leasing area. Any such departure from the Council controls requires careful consideration of the objectives for footpath dining and trading. The objectives read as follows:

 

·      To maintain the primary function of footpaths as public pedestrian corridors and domains, whilst encouraging opportunities for outdoor dining and other footpath trading activities.

·      To allow for the use of airspace over public roads and public land for dining, only where appropriate.

·      To ensure access for people with disabilities is provided within dining areas and associated facilities.

·      To maintain public safety including unobstructed access to footpaths and adjacent buildings.

·      To require high quality furniture and fittings that enhances the streetscape.

·      To have regard to the heritage significance of an item or area, where applicable. 

 

In considering the merits of the proposal and the existing site context, the inclusion of permanent street furniture is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed outdoor chairs, tables and umbrellas are directly adjacent to existing fixed street furniture comprising of benches and tables to the south. The outdoor furniture will not compromise the appearance of the northern end of the esplanade and contributes positively to the character of the locality as a popular tourist destination.

·      The prescriptive note within the RDCP2013 emphasises avoiding enclosed café structures given it can privatize the public space. The proposed outdoor dining area is not enclosed by any external structures and is not defined by any other associated structures that would otherwise indicate that it has exclusivity to the Council footpath. Subsequently, the development complies with the intent of the Council controls in privatising Council public space. Any issues regarding public liability can be addressed with the inclusion of relevant conditions of consent that the licensee must enter into a policy of public risk insurance to the minimum value of $20,000,000 or otherwise reasonably nominated by Council. 

·      The external finishes and materials are acceptable and will remain consistent with the appearance of the existing streetscape. The outdoor furniture adopts a similar colour scheme of blue/white which matches the outdoor furnishings within the immediate locality including the traffic bollards, lamp posts, benches and tables. The neutral nature perspective of the colours scheme is also contributory to a footway dining area that does not visually appear for private use given its compatibility is similar to that of the existing outdoor furnishings. 

·      The location of the outdoor dining area is unique in that it is generous in size and suitably proportioned to accommodate for an outdoor dining area of this nature. The esplanade is not immediately adjacent to a roadway and is suitably designed to cater for outdoor dining uses without compromising the safety and the amenity of the public footpath.  

·      The proposed outdoor dining area will continually allow for a constant flow of pedestrians moving through the northern end of Coogee Beach. Adequate separation is provided with a setback of approximately 4.7 metres to the eastern adjoining outdoor dining area and 4.2 metres to the Coogee Pavilion which allows for suitable clearance on either side of the outdoor dining area for pedestrian to safely move between the proposed outdoor dining area. In addition to this, the subject section 96 application does not seek to reduce the side setbacks of the outdoor dining area that has been granted as part of the original development consent.

·      The footway dining will maintain the heritage value of the heritage item of the former Coogee Palace Hotel and the subject section 96 modification does not involve any associated works to the front façade. The development will continue to comply with Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation of the RLEP2012. 

·      The Coogee Beach Master Plan prepared by Bruce McKenzie and Associates has identified that this area be used to cater for serviced table settings on leased spaces.  

·      A condition of consent has been included that the fixed furniture be subject to a twelve (12) month trial to ensure ongoing monitoring of complaints and subject to future projections of pedestrian numbers during peak periods.

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject section 96 modifications are acceptable in complying with the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 and Section 79(C) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended). The increase in the patron numbers from 35 to 48 persons will not result in any adverse noise impacts and suitable noise conditions have been included to ensure it remains within a suitable noise range to the neighbouring dwellings. With regards to the proposed fixed furniture, the outdoor furnishings will not compromise the appearance of the northern end of the esplanade and maintains unobstructed pedestrian access on the Council footpath. Council recommends granting development consent subject to the inclusion of a twelve month trial from the date of commencement of the footway dining area. The section 96 will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/238/1998/C to modify the approved development by increasing the number of patrons in the outdoor area from 35 to 48 and inclusion of fixed chairs, tables and umbrellas on the Council footpath at No. DA/238/1998/C, subject to the following non standard conditions:

 

·          Amend Condition Nos. 8, 17, 19, 26 and 28 to read:

8.       The premises must not be used for the sale, supply or consumption of alcohol unless a Liquor Licence (issued under the Liquor Act 2007) has been obtained beforehand.

 

The footway dining/trading area must not be used solely for the consumption of alcohol.  Alcohol may only be served or consumed in this area if it is in conjunction with and ancillary to the service of a meal (as defined in the Liquor Act 2007), to the satisfaction of Council.

       

17.     The increase to the patron numbers (48) and the operating hours must be restricted to the following and both are subject to a review period in accordance with Section 80A (10B) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and Division 14 of the Environmental & Assessment Regulation 2000:

 

Outdoor dining/footway

·      Friday to Saturday                        7.00am - 11.00pm

·      Sunday  to Thursday             7.00am - 10.00pm

 

The number of patrons, fixed furniture and the operating hours including tables, chairs and umbrellas will be reviewed by Council within 12 months of the date of commencement of the hours of operation. The operator of the premises must advise Council in writing of the date of commencement of the hours of operation. Appropriate supporting evidence (including but not limited to, an acoustic report) may be required at the end of the review period to demonstrate compliance with all conditions of this consent as part to the review.

 

19.     The licensee shall keep a policy of public risk insurance with respect to the tables, chairs and umbrellas/shade structures. The limit of public risk shall be not less than $20,000,000 or such other sum as the Council may reasonably nominate in writing from time to time as the amount, which may be paid arising out of any one single accident or event. The public risk insurance must cover any liabilities outside the designated hours of operation stipulated within the license agreement.

 

NOTES:

 

a.  The policy shall extend to cover death or injury to any person and damage to property of any person sustained by the shade structures or when such person is using or entering the licensed area.

 

b.  The policy must name the Council as the owner and the licensee as the insured and must contain a clause that the insurer will not change the insurance without first giving the Council ten (10) days prior written notice.

 

c.   The insurance must be with an insurer approved by the Council and a copy of the policy or a certificate of insurance shall be delivered by the licensee to the Council.

 

26.     The dimensions of the outdoor trading/dining area must be consistent with the development consent and all items of furniture must be located within the designated approved area at all times. The total number of patrons must not exceed 48 persons at any time.

 

28.     (a) The operator of the Hotel premises shall comply with the Plan of Management titled “Merivale Coogee Pavilion Plan of Management – Version No: 0.26, Issued: 24 August 2015 (“Pavilion POM”) at all times.

 

(b) The Pavilion POM referred to at 25 (a) may be amended from time to time ONLY with the prior written approval of Randwick City Council’s Manager, Health Building & Regulatory Services and the  Eastern Beaches Local Area Command Licensing Police.

 

Add Condition nos. 31, 32, 33

 

31.     The tables, chairs and umbrellas must be removed by the applicant if:

 

·      Any public utility authority requires the tables, chairs and umbrella structures to be removed to facilitate access for maintenance/upgrade of services within the license area; 

·      The duration of the license agreement expires and a new license is not entered into; or

·      The licensee fails to comply with the terms of the license agreement and/or Council determines that the umbrellas are posing as a safety hazard.

 

32.     All works within the footpath dining area shall be undertaken by a Council approved contractor. The contractor engaged to undertake the works must hold full public liability in relation to any claims sustained as a result of the works.

 

33.     All material and equipment must be stored within the existing licensed area at all times during the construction works.

 

34.     The licensee (of the subject footpath dining area) shall clean, maintain, renew and repair the tables, chairs and umbrella structures located within the road reserve, with all works being undertaken to the satisfaction of Council.

 

35.     The L10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background noise level (L90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) by more than 5dB between 7.00am and 11pm at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

The LA10 noise level emitted from the licensed premises shall not exceed the background noise level (LA90) in any Octave Band Centre Frequency (31.5Hz – 8kHz inclusive) between 11pm and 7.00am at the boundary of any affected residence.  The background noise level shall be measured in the absence of noise emitted from the licensed premises.

 

Notwithstanding compliance with the above, the noise from the licensed premises shall not be audible within any habitable room in any residential premises between the hours of 11.00pm and 7.00am.

 

36.     No amplified music, entertainment, or any other ancillary activity is permitted in the outdoor area.

 

37.     The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health nuisance to the adjoining/nearby premises or environment.

 

39.     There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

40.     Preparation, display and/or storage of food is not permitted within the footway dining area.

 

41.     The footway dining area is to be maintained free of grease, food items and associated litter at all times.

 

42.     The applicant must submit to Council for approval, and have approved, a detailed specification for the connection of the proposed outdoor dining furniture to the existing pavement in Dolphin Street. The detail shall include all structural elements (such as pad footings below the pavers, bolts etc.) for ensuring the furniture maintains its location and structural integrity during and outside of the approved licence hours. Design certification for all structural elements, from a suitably qualified engineer/s, must accompany the specification. The existing paving pattern and paving materials must not be substantially altered as a result of the installation of the proposed outdoor dining furniture.

 

43.     A public utility impact assessment must be carried out on all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.  The assessment should include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of services.

 

44.     Documentary evidence from the relevant public utility authorities confirming they have agreed to the proposed works and that their requirements have been or are able to be satisfied, must be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of any installation works. The applicant must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, Sydney Water and other service authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

45.     A detailed design and performance specification must be provided to Council for the proposed outdoor dining furniture. The specification must demonstrate that the nominated furniture is fit for its intended purpose given the location and expected usage / loadings. The furniture selection must be approved by Council prior to its installation.

 

46.     The applicant must meet the full cost for all works associated with installation of the proposed outdoor dining furniture. All works shall be undertaken by a Council approved contractor and in accordance with Council’s Policy for “Vehicular Access and Road and Drainage Works”.

 

47.     The applicant must meet the full cost for Council to remove the furniture and reinstate the area to Council’s satisfaction should the licence agreement be terminated. Similarly, the applicant must meet the full cost for Council to remove the furniture should removal be required to accommodate service authorities or emergency vehicle access.

 

·          Delete Condition Nos. 24 and 29

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M8/15

 

Subject:                  Planning Proposal - 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra

Folder No:               RZ/3/2015

Author:                    Asanthika Kappagoda, Senior Strategic Planner      

 

Introduction

 

This report assesses the merits of a Planning Proposal relating to 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra (Cnr Lot 3821, DP 752015). The site is zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). It presently contains a childcare centre lawfully operating under existing use rights (DA/328/1996 approved on 18 December 1996) and a small disused church.

 

The subject proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the RLEP 2012 to include ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use on the site. This will serve to reinstate a use that was lawfully permitted on the land under the former special uses zoning of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 Consolidation (RLEP 1998). No changes are proposed to the existing zoning or any other provisions applicable to the site.

 

The site’s current SP2 Infrastructure zoning only permits ‘place of public worship’ (reflecting the original use being a church), and development that can occur on the land is specific to this use in accordance with the Standard LEP Instrument. This in turn has made the childcare centre on the site an existing use. It should be noted that there are other childcare centres operating on land zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) in Randwick City. The RLEP 2012 SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zoning has effectively made these childcare centres subject to the existing use rights provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and Regulations.

 

A concept plan depicting the expansion of the childcare centre into the adjoining disused church building together with a traffic/parking statement has been submitted as appendices to the proposal. While this information is noted, detailed design and amenity matters have not been addressed in the assessment of this Planning Proposal, as any future proposal to expand the childcare centre into the disused church building would be subject to a separate Development Application (DA) process for consideration under Council’s planning framework.

 

While noting Council’s general approach is to not support standalone Planning Proposals to change the zoning of individual parcels of land, the subject proposal is supported on the basis that it is reinstating a formerly permissible use, and the current SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zone is an anomaly as the church has vacated and the childcare centre is now the lawful primary use on this site.

 

This report recommends that the Planning Proposal be forwarded to the Minister for Planning for gateway determination, which is the next stage of the process to amend the RLEP 2012.


Background

 

Planning Proposal Process

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (The Act) and Regulations set out the process for amending the zoning or planning provisions relating to a parcel(s) of land in NSW (rezoning). Changes to the zoning or planning provisions can only be made via a formal amendment to the Local Environmental Plan (LEP).

 

A Planning Proposal is the first step to commence changes to the zoning or planning provisions relating to a parcel of land. It is a formal application that sets out the objectives, intended outcomes, and justification for the proposed changes, and also details the community consultation to be undertaken.

 

Council as the relevant planning authority is required to formally consider any Planning Proposals that are received. If Council resolves to proceed with the proposal, it is forwarded to the Minister for Planning for a ‘Gateway Determination’. The ‘Gateway Determination’ is essentially a checkpoint for Planning Proposals, and enables those proposals that are not well founded, or not in the public interest to be stopped early in the process, before significant resources are committed in carrying out technical studies or investigations.

 

The Minister’s ‘Gateway Determination’ will stipulate whether the Planning Proposal should proceed, whether it needs to be resubmitted, the timeframe for its completion (usually nine months from the date of the Determination), the community consultation and State/Commonwealth agency requirements and whether a public hearing is needed. 

 

Following the Gateway Determination, a Planning Proposal is formally placed on public exhibition for comment. The final LEP and any accompanying maps which amend the Council’s principal planning instrument (i.e. the RLEP 2012) are made by the Minister for Planning (and notified on the NSW legislation web site) in accordance with the Act.  Certain LEPs which are of local significance can be finalised by Council via delegation from the Minister (this is determined at the gateway stage). 

 

It is important to note that a Planning Proposal is a separate process to a DA. A Planning Proposal seeks Council’s support to commence a process to amend the LEP, whereas a DA seeks Council’s consent to enable a development to proceed.

 

In the circumstance that a Planning Proposal is supported, resulting in amendments to an LEP, the applicant would still be required to submit a DA for assessment so that any design and amenity matters can be thoroughly considered under Council’s planning framework.

 

Historical Context

 

Zoning under Previous Instruments

The subject site was originally occupied by the Maroubra Bay Uniting Church and zoned Special Uses 5(a) Church under the Randwick Planning Scheme Ordinance (RPSO). In 1997 development consent was granted for the conversion of the existing community facilities hall into a childcare centre accommodating 29 children (DA/328/1996).

 

The site was subsequently zoned SP5-Special Uses under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 (Consolidation) (RLEP 1998) (now repealed).  The childcare centre was consistent with the RLEP 1998 Special Uses zoning at the time, which permitted a broad range of uses with development consent, including childcare centre development.

 

Special Infrastructure Zoning Under the RLEP 2012

Council embarked on a comprehensive review of the RLEP 1998 in line with the State Government’s Standard LEP Template. The State Government direction for standardised LEPs required that only major infrastructure or specialised activity centres retain a SP2 Infrastructure zoning, whereas all other special uses sites (such as schools and churches) were to be accommodated in the adjacent residential zone (Department of Planning Practice Notes PN 10-001).

 

Council’s Special Uses Discussion Paper (which informed the special use zonings and related controls in the RLEP 2012), recommended that the subject site be rezoned to the adjoining residential zone (i.e. R2 Low Density Residential) consistent with the aforementioned State Government direction. Notably, a residential zoning would have recognised the existing childcare centre on the site as childcare centres are permitted with development consent in all residential zones under the RLEP 2012.

 

The same Paper also raised concerns that an automatic translation of special use sites into an adjoining residential zone may be inconsistent with State Environmental Planning Policy 55 (SEPP 55), which requires that prior to a zoning change allowing a more sensitive land use (e.g. residential or childcare centre), the consent authority must consider if the subject land is potentially contaminated.

 

To meet the requirements of SEPP 55 and to ensure a consistent approach, Council wrote to landowners of all special use sites (including the landowners of the subject site) requesting that preliminary contamination investigations be undertaken before such sites were zoned residential. As no such investigations were undertaken by the landowner at that time, the site (along with most churches in the Local Government Area) was zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Public Place of Worship) under the RLEP 2012.

 

The Standard LEP Instrument requires that each site zoned SP2 Infrastructure stipulate a nominated use and development that can occur on such sites is very specific to that use. As the nominated use for the subject site is ‘place of public worship’ (reflecting the original use being a church), the childcare centre thus became a non-conforming use, however continues to operate lawfully under existing use rights.

  

It is acknowledged that in this context the SP2 zoning (which specifies a ‘place of public worship’ as the nominated use) is an anomaly, particularly as the church has vacated the site and the primary use is the childcare centre.

 

Pre- Lodgment Meeting

On 11 March 2015 a pre-lodgment meeting was held with the applicant regarding a proposal to increase the capacity of the childcare centre to 64 children (from 29 children as approved), by expanding into the former church building. As noted earlier in this report an increase in the number of children within this childcare centre will be subject to the development assessment process should an amendment to Schedule 1 of the RLEP 2012 take place.

 

The applicant was requested to seek legal advice to confirm whether the childcare centre could legally expand into other parts of the site, given that the centre itself is a non-conforming use in the SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zone. Council subsequently received a Planning Proposal (the subject of this report).

 

An assessment of the Planning Proposal together with a discussion on development limitations under existing use rights legislation is detailed further on in this report.

 

The Site

The subject site is approximately 1,012m2 in area, triangular in shape and occupies a corner allotment bounded by Storey Street and Malabar Road in Maroubra (see Fig 1). Buildings on the site include a community hall which has been occupied by the subject childcare centre since 1997 as well as the aforementioned disused church building located on the south western corner.

 

The site is sparsely vegetated with the exception of trees and shrubs located along the perimeter of the site. Vehicle access is provided from Storey Street. This side of the street also has indented parking bay for childcare centre users. Pedestrian access is available from both Malabar Road and Storey Street frontages.

 

Surrounding Context

The site is situated in a low density residential zoned area. Development to the north of the site along Storey Road predominantly comprises single dwelling houses. There are a number of local to mid-scale residential flat buildings towards the north east of the site along Malabar Road. Further north is a small business centre that services the neighbourhood catchment. Development towards the south of the site, along Malabar Road, features a number of attached dual occupancies. 

 

 

Figure 1- Location of Subject Site

 

Local Planning Framework

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject site’s SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zoning restricts its use to ‘places of worship’ and ancillary uses. This is further reinforced by the SP2 zone objectives which generally focus on protecting land for infrastructure and community uses.

 

The RLEP 2012 does not establish generalised development standards for the SP2 zone given the unique nature of such sites. Accordingly no heights or FSR are expressed for the subject site. The site is not affected by other development considerations such as heritage or flooding matters.

 

The surrounding context is generally zoned R2 Low Density Residential with the low density character reflected and preserved by through a building height limit of 9.5m and FSR of 0.5:1. Dwellings and semis are subject to a separate FSR on a sliding scale depending on allotment size.

 

 

Randwick Development Control 2013

The Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP) does not contain specific controls pertaining to the SP2 zone given the unique nature of special use sites.

 

Any childcare centre development proposal would be assessed in line with Section D11 of the DCP which sets out controls to maintain a high standard of amenity for childcare centres and the surrounding locality, as well as in conjunction with any other relevant controls (e.g. traffic and parking).

 

The Planning Proposal

The subject Planning Proposal has been prepared by Urbis on behalf of Malek Group Pty Ltd (the proponent) and relates to 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra (Cnr Lot 3821, DP 752015). It seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the RLEP 2012 by including ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use for the site.   No other changes are proposed to the current zoning or planning provisions applicable to the site.

 

The Planning Proposal states that its primary objective is to facilitate the continued use of the site as a childcare centre and promote the orderly and economic use of the land. It notes that the intended outcome of the proposed RLEP amendment is to enable the future expansion of the childcare centre.

 

A concept plan showing the expansion of the childcare centre into the disused church building is indicative of the design scheme that may potentially be sought via a DA, should the RLEP 2012 be amended to permit childcare centres on the site. The concept design indicates an increase in gross floor area by 84m2 (reflecting the area of the existing church building) together with associated parking.

 

A Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) supplementing the Planning Proposal provides a preliminary assessment of the concept design in line with the parking requirements of the DCP and the RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments. The TIS notes that there is no fundamental impediment to the rezoning of the site on parking and traffic grounds and any such impacts are capable of being suitably resolved at the DA stage.

 

The Planning Proposal further states that amenity matters such as acoustic impacts, waste management and accessibility are all capable of being refined/ resolved at the DA stage.

 

Assessment of the Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal has been assessed to ascertain whether it has merit to go to the next stage of the planning process to amend the RLEP 2012, which is its referral to the Department of Planning and Environment for a ‘gateway determination’.

 

The assessment gives consideration to the proponent’s justification for the RLEP amendment (as required by the NSW Government’s A Guide to Preparing Planning Proposals) together with feedback from Council technical specialists on key issues, which are discussed as follows.

 

Proponent’s Justification

The proponent states that the requested RLEP amendment will provide the planning framework necessary to expand the lawfully established childcare centre in the future (subject to development consent), noting that the RLEP 2012 had the effect of prohibiting this use in the SP2 Infrastructure zone. The proponent contends that the proposed Schedule 1 amendment is the best means of achieving a permissible child care centre on the site while constituting ‘best practice’ by removing unnecessary existing use rights situations in land use planning.

 

The proponent considers that by retaining the childcare centre on the site and potentially expanding its operations, the operator could achieve the site’s full potential, while contributing to social infrastructure in the locality as well as additional employment opportunities.

 

Additional Permitted Uses Under Schedule 1

Clause 2.5 of the RLEP 2012 allows Council to permit additional uses for particular land. These uses are permitted in addition to those identified in the RLEP 2012 zoning land use tables and are listed for each site in Schedule 1 of the RLEP 2012. The inclusion of an additional use under Schedule 1 is generally undertaken where land use permissibility cannot be suitably controlled by the zone and associated land use table.

 

Expansion Under Existing Use Rights

Existing use rights provisions under the Act and Regulations are aimed at ensuring that the use of a building, work or land that has been legally permitted through development consent may continue, despite being prohibited under a new LEP. An existing use may only be enlarged, intensified or expanded with development consent as part of a DA merit based process.

 

When considering the proponent’s justification for the Planning Proposal, it is noted that under the Regulations, existing use rights relate to only that part of the land to which the original development consent applies. Legal advice has confirmed that in the context of the subject site, any proposal for expansion would be limited to the building approved as the childcare centre (under DA328/96) as opposed to the disused church building (which itself is subject to a separate development consent).

 

The expansion of the childcare centre into the disused church building is restricted as childcare centres are not permitted under the present SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zoning. It is agreed that the current zoning substantially limits the potential of the childcare centre to expand to other parts of the site and notably such limitations would not have applied under the previous RLEP 1998 Special Uses zoning. It is further agreed that any proposal to expand the childcare centre would thus be contingent on an appropriate planning framework that would allow for the continued development of the site.

 

Concept Plan

The aforementioned concept plan indicates an increase in gross floor area by 84m2 accounting for the expansion into the disused church building.

 

While noting that the subject Planning Proposal is not seeking consent for the proposed expansion, the concept plan has been broadly considered in line with the DCP requirements for childcare centres to assist with the assessment of the strategic merit and potential impact of an amendment to the RLEP.

 

It is considered that the concept plan is generally consistent with the DCP controls for childcare centres in terms of maintaining a single storey scale in a low density residential environment. It is noted that a more detailed assessment can only be undertaken at a future DA stage when sufficient information is available on centre design and other amenity considerations such as visual and acoustic privacy, safety and security.

 

Traffic Impact Statement

The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted as part of the proposal states that there is no fundamental impediment to the rezoning of the site on parking and traffic grounds. It notes that the concept plan having regard to the net increase of 37 children and 6 staff makes provisions for 5 additional car parking spaces and 3 staff spaces, and is thus capable of meeting Council’s DCP requirements (i.e. one parking space per 8 children and one space per 2 staff). These issues will be subject to a detailed DA process should the Planning Proposal result in an amendment to Schedule 1 of the RLEP 2012.

 

It is important to note that the TIS comprises a preliminary analysis of traffic and parking impacts based on the concept plan and may not be a reflection of the actual proposal submitted at the DA stage. Any future DA would need to be supplemented by a comprehensive Parking and Access Report addressing the likely impact of the proposal on traffic, pedestrian safety and parking in the locality.

 

Preliminary feedback from Council’s Integrated Transport Department regarding both the concept plan and TIS indicate that the proposal for expansion will need to suitably address safety and visibility issues. Additionally, once a mix of children is ascertained, there will be a need to review staff car parking provision, as the ratio of staff to children is based on age groupings (with a greater ratio of staff to younger aged children). There may also be a need to review on-site car parking provision as the concept plan relies on the use of on-street parking in part. Such matters will need to be resolved at the DA stage where Council’s Integrated Transport Department will have greater input.

 

Merits of the Proposal

When considering the merits of the Planning Proposal it is noted that the subject site’s RLEP SP2 Infrastructure zoning (with nominated use as ‘place of public worship’) had the unintended effect of prohibiting childcare centre development. As a result the existing childcare centre, while operating lawfully, is now a non-conforming use in the SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zone. The SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zoning is now regarded as an anomaly, particularly as the church has vacated the property and is no longer the primary use of the land.

 

As a result of its zoning under the RLEP 2012, the potential to expand the existing childcare centre into other parts of the site is limited under existing use rights legislation. Notably under the previous RLEP 1998, the proposal to upgrade and expand the childcare centre would have been dealt with under a straight forward DA (given the permissibility of childcare centres in the Special Uses zone) and not required an LEP amendment to facilitate this process. It is also acknowledged that a residential zoning (in line with State Government direction) would have recognised the existing childcare centre on the site, given this use is permissible (with development consent) in all residential zones.

 

It can be argued that an expansion of the childcare centre could potentially be accommodated within the existing building subject to the original development consent (e.g. such as through adding an additional storey to the childcare centre). Notwithstanding, the DCP controls generally discourage childcare centres above ground level for safety and access reasons.

 

When considering the site context and the fact that the church building has been disused for a number of years, it is reasonable to assert that the existing SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zoning is redundant as it no longer reflects the use of the land. Furthermore in its present state, the site with its disused church building is underutilised and does not represent an orderly and efficient use of the land.

 

Council’s general stance is to not support standalone Planning Proposals relating to individual parcels of land given that Randwick City was subject to a relatively recent comprehensive planning review in preparing the RLEP 2012. Notwithstanding, given the circumstances of the case as articulated in this report, the Planning Proposal is considered to have merit as it is simply reinstating a use that was formally permissible and unintentionally prohibited under the current LEP. This is supported by legal advice recently received by Council which notes that the approach of amending Schedule 1 of the RLEP 2012 to provide for childcare centre as an additional use in respect of the entire site would be consistent with the fact that the predecessor RLEP 1998 permitted this use under its previous special uses zoning.

 

On this basis, it is recommended that the Planning Proposal be referred to the Minister for Planning for a gateway determination, noting that any subsequent DA for expansion of the childcare centre would be subject to a separate assessment process where detailed design and amenity issues can be thoroughly considered.

 

Future Review of SP2 Infrastructure Zoned Land

The subject Planning Proposal has highlighted the fact that there are other childcare centres operating lawfully across Randwick City that are zoned SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) under the RLEP 2012. Similarly to the subject site, the RLEP 2012 SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zoning has effectively made these childcare centres subject to the existing use rights provisions of the Act and Regulations.

 

Given the issues raised in this report, it is considered timely that a detailed review of all SP2 Infrastructure zoned land be undertaken to investigate the zoning and development standards suitable for these sites. It is recommended that the subject review be included in the Strategic Planning Department’s Operational Plan for the 2016-2017 financial year period.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome

4

Excellence in urban design and development.

Directions

4a

Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

4b

New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The applicable fee for the preliminary assessment of the proposal was paid by the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges Policy ($7,960) and further fees will be required should the rezoning progress to the next stage (to cover public consultation and further assessment).

 

Conclusion

 

The RLEP 2012 SP2 Infrastructure (Place of Public Worship) zoning for 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra (Cnr Lot 3821, DP 752015) is now regarded as an anomaly as the church has vacated and the childcare centre is the primary use on the site. While the childcare centre continues to operate lawfully its potential to expand is limited under existing use rights legislation.

 

The subject Planning Proposal seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the RLEP 2012 to include ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use on the site. The proposal is supported on the basis that it will reinstate a use that was formerly permitted on the land under the previous RLEP 1998. Any future development proposal to expand the childcare centre would be subject a separate DA process where design issues and amenity impacts can be suitably assessed. It is accordingly recommended that the Planning Proposal be referred to the Minister for Planning for gateway determination. It is also recommended that a city wide review of SP2 Infrastructure zoned land be undertaken in the near future, to determine the appropriate zoning and development standards for such sites.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     Council endorse the Planning Proposal (attachment 1) which proposes to amend the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 to include ‘childcare centre’ as an additional permitted use for 270 Malabar Road, Maroubra (Cnr Lot 3821, DP 752015).

 

b)     the Planning Proposal (attachment 1) be forwarded to the Minister for Planning requesting Gateway Determination and endorsement for exhibition in accordance with s.56 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

c)     Council seek to exercise the delegation of the Minister for Planning’s functions under s59 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 to make the Local Environmental Plan.

 

d)     Council endorse a review of SP2 Infrastructure zoned land to address anomalies and any relevant issues and that the subject review be included in the Strategic Planning Operational Plan for the 2016-2017 period. 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the Planning Proposal 270 Malabar Road Maroubra

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                             10 November 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M9/15

 

Subject:                  Randwick Light Rail Alignment Working Group

Folder No:               F2014/00380

Author:                    Joanna Hole, Co-ordinator-Strategic Planning      

 

Introduction

 

This report provides an update on the Randwick Rail Alignment Working Group, which was formed to investigate alternatives to the approved Light Rail alignment along Alison Road.

 

Background

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 24 February 2015, Council considered a Notice of Motion (Cr Matson) regarding the approved Light Rail Alignment on Alison Road, and the associated losses of trees, parklands and bike path. A partial extract of the resolution (Matson/Andrews) is below:

 

That Council responds to the negative impact of the amending CBD and South East Light Rail State Significant Infrastructure Approval SSI-6042 of December 2014 by (partial extract below):

 

(3) forming the Randwick Rail Alignment Working Group to report back to Council on the feasibility, requirements, cost, environmental impact and possible advantages of an alternative alignment of the Randwick arm of the CSELR away from the approved Alison and Wansey Road alignment, not excluding alternate routes including the old tram route to the racecourse, the western side of the racecourse and High Street, and prepare a submission to the State Government arguing for the feasibility of the proposed changes;

 

(4) that the membership of the Randwick Rail Alignment Working Group shall consist of North and West Ward Councillors only;

 

(5) Providing the Working Group with a budget of up to $100,000 to employ consultants to achieve this objective;

 

This report responds to Item (3) of the above resolution.

 

Issues

 

Establishment of the Working Group

The Randwick Rail Alignment Working Group (referred to in this report as the Working Group) was established in March 2015, comprising North and West Ward Councillors, and assisted by Council officers including the General Manager, Director City Planning and staff. A summary of the meetings and key items discussed is below:

 

·      Meeting 1: 31 March 2015               Alternative options identified

·      Meeting 2: 9 June 2015           Options reviewed and shortlisted

·      Meeting 3: 2 July 2015            Investigation of design and feasibility issues

·      Meeting 4: 17 August 2015     Consultant advice presented and reviewed

 

 

 

Options considered

The Working Group identified a long list of 6 options for initial review. On 28 May 2015 Transport for NSW released a construction programme for the Light Rail Project, which identified works on the Alison Road area commencing in January 2016.

 

Given this short timeframe the Working Group considered the need for any alternative proposal to be mindful of the Light Rail Project’s design and construction timeframe, in order to be considered feasible. The Working Group decided to concentrate on improving key aspects of the approved design. 

 

Suggested Improvements

The suggested improvements comprised:

 

·          Adjustments to the location and arrangement of pedestrian and bicycle paths along Alison Road, and their crossing points with the Light Rail tracks to improve safety and useability of the paths;

·          Improvements to the capacity and safety of the passenger “reservoir” spaces at the ends of the light rail stop, especially in event mode;

·          Removal of the “third track” located to the east of the Light Rail stop (intended for use only during special Racecourse events);

·          Use of side platforms instead of an island platform at the Light Rail stop;

·          Adjustment of the track alignment near the corner of Alison Road and Darley Road to allow retention of some mature trees.

 

Specialised advice from transport consultants, Traffix, was commissioned to investigate improvements to access, safety and platform capacity around the Light Rail stop. Urban design and landscape consultants, Spackman Mossop and Michaels, were also engaged to develop concept plans.

 

Council officers met with Centennial Park and Moore Park Trust on 10 August to outline the Working Group’s activities and suggested improvements. The Trust indicated their openness to the Group’s suggested amendments. The Trust has previously been supportive of the Transport for NSW scheme, with the Alison Road Light Rail alignment and stop on located within Centennial Parklands.

 

Following the final Working Group meeting in August, Council officers met with Transport for NSW Light Rail project team members to table the Working Group’s suggestions and seek initial feedback. This was followed by a formal submission on 8 October 2015 to the Light Rail Project Director.

 

Council officers are continuing to liaise with Transport for NSW on the Working Group’s recommendations via stakeholder meetings, Reference Groups and design package reviews. Council will be informed of future progress and outcomes.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome: 6.      A liveable city.

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

Outcome: 9.      Integrated and accessible transport

Direction: 9c.    Advocate and/or plan for integrated local and regional transport improvements, including high capacity transport such as light/standard rail.

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of specialist consultant services in developing this study are approximately $33,500, and within the budget established by the Council resolution previously noted in this report.

 

Conclusion

 

The outcomes of the Working Group’s investigations identify improvements to the safety and accessibility of the Light Rail stop on Alison Road and surrounding pedestrian and cycle network. The recommendations also allow for adjustments to the light rail alignment to reduce the impact on trees and help protect the visual impact and landscape significance of this location.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council receives and notes the outcomes of the investigations of the Randwick Light Rail Alignment Working Group.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil