RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 1 December 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                                                                                              1 December 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, 1 December 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 - 10 November 2015

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Planning Matters

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.

D80/15     13-33R Ocean Street, Clovelly (DA/683/2015)....................... 1

D81/15     22 Curtin Crescent, Maroubra (DA/123/2015/A)................... 11

D82/15     6 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/400/2012/D)......................... 17

D83/15     5/71-73 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/689/2015)................... 27

D84/15     153-157 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/900/2014) ............. 33

D85/15     11 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/535/2015)............................ 55

D86/15     512 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/335/2015)................... 79

D87/15     29 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/632/2015)............................ 111

D88/15     14 Mundarrah Street, Clovelly (DA/220/2015).................... 117

D89/15     756 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/424/2015)...................... 147

D90/15     166 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/332/2015).................... 167

 

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting NOT required)

M10/15     Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and clause 4.6 between 1 October to 18 November 2015........................... 179

M11/15     Council as Relevant Planning Authority for Pre Gateway Review Planning Proposals............................................................ 187    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D80/15

 

Subject:                  13-33R Ocean Street, Clovelly (DA/683/2015)

Folder No:               DA/683/2015

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

 

Proposal:                 Removal of two existing light poles at Burrows Park and installation of two new 18m high light poles on western side of playing field and two new 18m high light poles on eastern side of playing field

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr G John

Owner:                    Department of Lands

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview23785.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as the subject site is under the care, control and management of Council.

Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks consent for the upgrading of lighting at the existing sports field at Burrows Park, Clovelly. The area to be lit by the proposed lighting is the playing field.

 

The proposed development seeks to;

·          Remove two (2) existing light poles currently located on the western side of Burrows Park, and;

·          Install four (4) new 18m high light poles, two (2) on the western side of the playing field and an additional two (2) 18m high light poles on the eastern side of playing field.

 

Council has confirmed that the existing and proposed lights are in use 5 days of the week and are timed to switch off at 9.30pm.

 

There is no proposed change to the patterns of usage or the approved sporting clubs who currently use the playing field.  

 

The siting of the proposed new light poles on the western side of the playing field has a separation distance from the neighboring Ocean Street residences of 21.7m at the point measured between poles 3 and 4 as shown on the Lux Diagram in Figure 1 below.

 

The new eastern side light poles are approximately 92.6m from the closest neighbours on the western side of Ocean Street.

 

The diagram below shows the distribution of the lighting over the playing field and confirms that there will be no light spill or light orientated towards the residences of the western side of Ocean Street. The users of the park in the evenings have advised that the current level of lighting is poor and hazardous for the children associated with the teams using the field.

 

The new and upgraded lighting will improve light to the playing fields.

 

Position of new light poles

71m (approx.)

Figure 1: Extract of Page 1 of 3 of the drawings prepared by Gerard Professional Solutions indicating distances between proposed pole locations

1.  Site

 

The subject site is located at 13-33R Ocean Street, Clovelly. The site has an area of approximately 4.2 hectares and includes the Burrows Park playing field, a dog exercise area, an outdoor gym, and Clovelly Bowling Club.

 

The playing field is used for organised sporting activities by various local sporting/community organisations including the Randwick Juniors Rugby Club, Clovelly Rugby Union Club and the Clovelly Crocodiles JRL Football Club.

 

As illustrated in below site photos, the Burrow Park playing field is located adjacent to Ocean Street and the larger site is flanked by Shark Point and the ocean.

 

Figure 2: Existing lights and Ocean Street residences opposite Burrows Park playing field

 

Figure 3: Burrows Park playing field looking south-east.

 

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

 

·      22 Ocean Street, Clovelly

·      24 Ocean Street, Clovelly

·      1/28 Ocean Street, Clovelly

·      2/28 Ocean Street, Clovelly

·      32 Ocean Street, Clovelly

·      1/36 Ocean Street, Clovelly

·      7/36 Ocean Street, Clovelly

·      42 Eastbourne Avenue, Clovelly

·      Clovelly Precinct Committee

 

Issues

Comments

Concern of greater light spill / light pollution /glare / illumination impacts on neighbouring living rooms and bedrooms facing the playing field.

 

The assessment pertaining to light spill identifies that light spill levels adjoining residential property boundaries in Ocean Street opposite Burrows Park is less than the maximum permitted illumination levels set out in the Australian Standard.

 

The report and accompanying diagram confirms that there will be no adverse light spill impacts.

Visual impacts within a Foreshore Protection Area with coastal views and a place of natural beauty. Structures should therefore be kept to a minimum.

The two (2) proposed lighting structures on the eastern side of the field are assessed as being sited appropriately and not visually dominant in the broader context of the park. They are sited to provide an improved and safe level of lighting to the playing field below.

 

The poles would not be visable at night and the slim line nature of the poles ensures that they will not be visually obtrusive.

 

Viewed from adjoining public and private properties or from the ocean towards the foreshore, the proposed light poles will create minimal visual amenity impact given the non-intrusive height and mass which will appear compatible with the character of the surrounding recreation area.

Increase in traffic due to change in usage patterns surrounding Burrows Park playing field, as a result of new lighting.

The proposal does not seek to alter the current use of the Park, and specifically, does not seek to intensify the organised sports use of the Park.

 

No increase to the hours is proposed.

Reinstate new poles in existing western side would achieve good outcome, but not in support of two new lightpole structures on the eastern side.

Australian Standard AS/NZS 2560.2.3 - 2007 for Sports lighting requires the 4 pole system as proposed. In conjunction with the AS/NZS 4282-1997 for the control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting, the system of lights and poles as proposed in considered to be consistent with other lighting upgrade project carried out for sports fields within the Randwick LGA.

The new lights will provide for no greater safety of park users than with the lights that currently exist as there has never been a safety issue, according to adjacent neighbour.

It is considered that the current lighting does not meet the Australian Standards are as such, is being made to be compliant to ensure the future safety of users as far as lighting is concerned.

Comment from the management of the junior sporting clubs indicated that current lighting and visibility is poor for the children using the fields in the evenings, during the winter months.

Concerns that additional lighting will alter the current pattern of use.

The proposal seeks to remove existing light pole infrastructure and replace this with a system that is compliant with the relevant standards. It is consistent with other similar upgrades in the Randwick LGA.

 

This proposal does not seek a change of intensification of the current use and therefore an assessment in this regard in unnecessary.

 

Investigations into the timing of the lights confirmed that Council allows for the lights to operate 5 days per week and the existing /proposed lights are set to switch of at 9.30pm.

Allowing this development will set a precedent for the Clovelly Bowling Club to alter its license conditions and install similar lights surrounding bowling greens to allow for competition and barefoot bowling of all months, not just winter months are currently typical of the playing fields.

Any intensification of a use pertaining to hours of operation, licencing, lighting and any other matter relating surrounding development would be subject to a stringent assessment and is therefore not considered to be relevant in this instance.

New lighting infrastructure on playing fields is an unnecessary cost for local ratepayers in order to meet an Australian standard for park lighting.

It is considered that the funding programs for the upgrading of recreational infrastructure such as sports field lighting is a cost largely supported by council and the community. The safety of users on land owned and operated by council is a reasonable and relevant responsibility.

Noise complaints related to playing field not being addressed by council in the past. Acoustic impacts of existing usage of and concern that improved lighting and improvements to playing fields will result in additional and increased usage.

It is considered that during construction, machinery and vehicles will generate some noise, limited to standard daylight construction hours for a short period of time. There is no proposal to change the current pattern of use of the park and all works proposed are consistent with the Plan of Management for the park.

Congestion issue will increase with improved lighting and potential changes in patterns of use of playing field.

As above, the proposed lighting upgrade does not seek to change the pattern of usage for the park.

 

Concern with lighting and timing of its application both on and off.

It is not proposed to change the timing of the upgraded lighting.

 

Investigations into the timing of the lights confirmed that Council allows for the lights to operate 5 days per week and the existing /proposed lights are set to switch of at 9.30pm.

 

Concerns that Burrows Park is gradually being upgraded to become a suitable sporting venue to cater for larger scale matches.

The Clovelly Bay Plan of Management allows only for minor renovations to amenities and no major extensions are proposed.

 

3.  Key Issues

 

3.1 Light Spill

Of 8 written submissions, 5 made had concerns relating to additional light spill or light pollution that would potentially affect the amenity of their residences at night.

 

In particular the concerns stated that the impact of additional light spill from the new light poles would enter their bedrooms and living rooms facing the Burrow Park playing fields.

 

Assessment Comments:

It is considered that the lighting removal and replacement proposal has addressed these issues in the Statement of Environmental Effects authored by SJB. Under 5.8.4 of the report, it is stated that;

 

A Lighting Design Certificate and an Obtrusive Light Compliance Report have been prepared by Gerard Professional Solutions and are contained in Attachment 3.The documents demonstrates the lighting strategy developed for the park, and demonstrates the lighting complies with Australian Standard AS/NZS 2560.2.3 – 2007 Sports lighting — Lighting for football (all codes).

 

The assessment identifies that light spill levels at adjoining residential property boundaries in Ocean Street opposite Burrows Park is less than the maximum permitted illumination levels set out in the Australian Standard and Australian Standard AS/NZS 4282-1997: Control of the Obtrusive Effects of Outdoor Lighting.”

 

Therefore, there will be no adverse effect on the amenity of neighboring residences in regards to light spill outside of acceptable levels stipulated in AS/NZS 4282 -1997.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with relevant objectives for development within the RE1 – Public Recreation zone and consistent with the Clovelly Bay Plan of Management.

 

3.2 Visual Impact

The proposed development includes two new light poles on the eastern side of the playing field and Burrows Park. Submissions to council noted objection to the installation of these additional light poles on the grounds of the visual impact.

 

The report prepared in support of the proposal outlines the visual impact of the development below.

 

“The proposed light poles have been located and sited to focus the lighting onto the sports fields, and will not be a visually dominant feature within the broader context of the park.

 

The proposed light poles are considered to have a non-intrusive height and mass, and will be compatible with the surrounding recreation area environment. The proposal will not result in any adverse visual impacts upon the natural features that contribute to the character of the park, and nor would it result in significant visual impacts upon the locality. The proposal is compatible with the character of the park.”

 

It is considered that proposal is consistent with existing lighting and power infrastructure on and adjacent to the park and therefore compatible with the character of the park and surrounding area. To ensure that the Australian Standard is met a suitable condition is included requiring a lux diagram with detailed dimensions to be provided prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

Figure 4: Existing light and power pole infrastructure.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Outcome  5:      Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The cost of this project is: $70,000

 

Conclusion

 

The subject land is located within the RE1- Public Recreation zone and the lighting upgrade is permissble and consistent with the objectives of the zone. The lighting associated with an organised sports use is consistent with the categorisation of the park as a Recreational Development Zone under the Clovelly Bay Plan of Management that has been adopted and administered by Council. 8 written submissions were received during the exhibition process.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 683/2015 for removal of two existing light poles at Burrows Park and installation of two new 18m high light poles on western side of playing field and two new 18m high light poles on eastern side of playing field, at No. 13-33R Ocean Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Obtrusive Light

3.       A Lux Diagram must be prepared by a suitable qualified person in external lighting/luminance which demonstrates that the lighting from the proposed park lights will not create light-spill beyond the park boundary which may cause an environmental nuisance to adjacent neighbouring dwellings and will comply with the requirements of Australian Standard 4282:1997 – Control of obstructive effects of outdoor lighting.

 

The Lux Diagram must provide the exact dimension/distances to the most affected residential receivers and shall be provided to Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

4.       The light poles and attached lights must be designed and located so as to minimize light-spill beyond the park boundary or cause an environmental nuisance.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 13-33R Ocean Street, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D81/15

 

Subject:                  22 Curtin Crescent, Maroubra (DA/123/2015/A)

Folder No:               DA/123/2015/A

Author:                    Gabrielle Coleman, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the floor level and wall height of the cabana/store room by 500mm and increasing the rear setback to the pool area

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mr B J Coulston

Owner:                    Mr B J Coulston

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This Section 96 (2) modification application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original development application was determined by Council at the Ordinary Council meeting on 23 June 2015.

 

1.     Proposal

 

Development consent was granted at an Ordinary Council Meeting 23 June 2015 for the following works:

 

·          demolition of the existing outbuilding;

·          excavation up to 2.1 m in the southwestern corner;

·          construction of:

-      a new single storey outbuilding with skillion roof in the southwestern corner;

-      a below ground swimming pool, including a pool safety fence and adjoining paved area in the northwestern corner;

-      contiguous pile walls along the southern and western boundary;

-      a concrete block retaining wall and 1.8 m high colourbond fence along the northern boundary;

-      a retaining wall and step between the dwelling house and the southern boundary; and

-      landscape planter boxes.

 

The subject application seeks to modify the approved development by increasing the floor level of the cabana/ store room by 500mm and increasing the rear setback to the pool.

 

2.     Site

 

The subject site (figure 1) is located on the western side of Curtin Crescent and is a two storey semi-detached dwelling house, which forms a pair with the adjoining property to the north at 24 Curtin Crescent. The site has a frontage at Curtin Crescent of approximately 17 metres, and a total site area of 380m2.The subject site slopes down from its rear boundary to the street, representing a change in level of about 1.5m.

 

Neighbouring to the north and south of the site is an existing semi-detached dwelling and free standing dwelling to the west. The lot is located within the R3 Medium Density Residential zone and the locality is primarily residential in nature and contains predominantly free standing dwellings.

 

Figure 1. The subject site at 22 Curtin Crescent Maroubra

Figure 2. Existing rear yard at 22 Curtin Crescent Maroubra.

 

3.     Section 96 Amendment

 

3.1 Substantially the Same Development

The modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the development will remain substantially the same as the development for which consent was originally granted. The proposal involves an increase in floor level to the approved cabana, but still retains the same overall height as well as an increase to the rear setback to the approved pool. The modifications will not in any additional significant or unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings or the character of the locality. Therefore, it is considered the modifications are considered to result in substantially the same development for which consent was granted.

 

3.2 Notification and Consideration of Submissions

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, one submission was received from the adjoining landowner to the south at 20 Curtin Crescent and the issues raised are below.

 

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. The following submission was received as a result of the notification process:

 

Owners 20 Curtin Crescent

Issue

Response

The additional height is unnecessary and will add to the loss of visual and acoustic privacy.

The floor level of the outbuilding has been raised to provide clearance to the existing sewerage line and is necessary in this case.

 

 

The additional height and use of the outbuilding as a cabana/store room is not seen to result in additional loss of visual and acoustic privacy as the external wall height has been reduced to retain the overall building height that was originally approved.

The additional height will lead to overshadowing.

An increase in height only occurs towards the rear of the outbuilding, where the roof pitch has been reduced. The minor increase is not seen to cause unreasonable additional overshadowing.

Request that a HAZMAT survey is conducted with respect to the removal of the existing cabana so that the asbestos is accounted for and there is a plan as per WorkCover guidelines to remove the asbestos.

Condition 20 of the development consent ensures that the removal of asbestos be carried out in accordance with relevant Occupational Health and Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements.

Dilapidation survey be supplied to adjoining properties prior to the commencement of work.

Condition 11 of the development consent states that a copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

That a condition is added that the trees to adjoining properties are not damaged during construction.

Condition 13 of the development consent requires that construction and protective fencing be located to the perimeter of the site.

 

Consultation with relevant public authorities:

No referrals to other public authorities are required.

 

5.     Key Issues

 

5.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The subject application will remain consistent with the relevant clauses of the RLEP 2012.

 

5.2 Development Control Plan – C2 Low Density Residential

 

Outbuildings

The overall height of the outbuilding of 3.8m from the approved floor level is retained. As viewed from the raised floor level 500mm at the section for the outbuilding, the overall height of the outbuilding is 3.3m.

 

Nonetheless, as per the RLEP 2012 the overall building height is measured from the existing ground level. In the original approval, the ground level was lowered by approximately 1m. The proposal to raise the section of the ground level for the outbuilding by 500mm will result in a maximum height of 2.4m for the outbuilding from the existing ground level. This is compliant with the RDCP 2013 height control of 3.6m for outbuildings.

 

Furthermore, the proposal continues to meet the relevant objectives below:

 

·      provide for ancillary development that enhances the liveability of dwellings and maintains reasonable levels of visual amenity, solar access and privacy for the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The cabana/storeroom will increase the liveability of the dwelling by providing useable space, ancillary to the dwelling and pool. The proposed increase in height to the outbuilding will provide the required clearance for the sewer line running underneath the proposal. As the overall height of the outbuilding is retained from the original approval, there will be no additional visual and acoustic amenity and additional overshadowing impacts caused by the Section 96 (2) modification.

 

·      ensure ancillary development do not present as prominent features and detract from the streetscape character.

 

The outbuilding is located within the rear yard of the site and is designed to be a bulk and scale relative to the existing dwelling on site. Due to its location, it would also not detract from the streetscape character.

 

Swimming pools and spas

The location of the pool will move further into the yard, increasing the rear setback from 2m to 3.7m. This will improve potential visual and acoustic privacy impacts between the subject dwelling and the adjoining properties and therefore meets the objectives of the RDCP 2013. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal has been assessed as satisfactory in that it meets the relevant controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013. It is not considered that the amendments are minor in nature, generally in keeping with what was originally approved. It is believed that there will not be significant adverse impacts on the adjoining neighbours and is therefore recommended for approval.

 

 

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. 123/2015/A for Section 96 modification of the approved development by increasing the floor level of the cabana and increasing the rear setback to the pool, at No. 22 Curtin Crescent, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Amend Condition No. 1 as follows:

 

          Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

6/15

Peter Banfield

17/02/2015

3 March 2015

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

6/15A

Peter Banfield

12/10/2015

22 October 2015

 

Only in so far as they relate to the modifications to the basement car park and associated works, and detailed in the Section 96 application; except as may be amended  by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D82/15

 

Subject:                  6 Dundas Street, Coogee (DA/400/2012/D)

Folder No:               DA/400/2012/D

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of approved development by increase in size of trafficable area of balconies accessed from living and dining areas. Original consent: Substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new roof, new pool at basement level, associated site and landscaping works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr C Koudounaris

Owner:                    Mr C Koudounaris

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview27655.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application seeks to modify the original consent determined at the Ordinary Council meeting of 25 June 2013.

 

The subject Section 96(2) application seeks approval to modify the approved development consent by increasing the size of the trafficable area of balconies accessed directly from the living and dining areas at first floor level.

 

1.       Proposal

 

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

 

First Floor Level

§  Increase the size of the two balconies at first floor level; See figure 1 below showing the proposed increased balcony size:

 

Figure 1: Proposed balcony extension highlighted in orange

 

2.       Site

 

The site is located in a low density R2 Zone under the RLEP 2012. The subject site is located on the western side of Dundas Street, on the corner of Dundas Street and Oberon Street, in Coogee and is presently occupied by an existing part 2, pat 3 storey dwelling house. The subject site has a regular rectangular shape and slopes significantly towards the front of the site on a northerly aspect.

 

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

 

 Boundary

Length

Land area

32.6m

32.6m

 

 496.8m²

 

Eastern, Front boundary (Dundas Street)

15.24m

Southern, Rear boundary

32.6m

Western, Side boundary

15.24m

 

Figure 2. Subject Site

 

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by a mix of low and medium density residential developments and consists predominantly of detached single dwellings and 3+ storey multi-unit developments.

 

3.       Site History

 

DA/400/2012 was approved at an Ordinary Council Meeting on the 25th June 2013, for substantial alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new roof, new pool at basement level, associated site and landscaping works. Mediation was undertaken twice as part of this application primarily with regards to View Loss.

 

DA/400/2012/A was approved at an Planning Committee Meeting on the 11th February 2014, for modification of the approved development by alteration to condition 2(d) to make the eastern ledge adjoining first floor living room a trafficable balcony. 

 

DA/400/2012/B was approved under delegated authority on the 9th April 2014 for modification of the approved development to increase the overall height of various windows on the development.

 

DA/400/2012/C was approved under delegated authority on the 25th August 2014 for modification of the approved development by reconstructing a section of the wall on the southern side of the building.

 

4.       S96 Assessment

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was granted. The scope of modifications includes changes in size of the trafficable areas of balconies accessed from living and dining rooms. The proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the built form and envelope of the approved consent and it will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

5.       Submissions

 

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

 

Unit 3, 8 Dundas Street

Objection

Comment

·          Objection to removing condition 2(d) placed on the original development to restrict the use of the roof to the east of the living room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·          Objection to the applicant applying to remove conditions placed on the consent as part of the original application.

 

·          Objection to the overall development with regards to view loss, loss of property value and damage to adjoining properties.

·         A section 96 application was submitted and approved at a Planning Committee Meeting on the 11th February 2014, which modified Condition 2 (d) of the development consent and allowed for the conversion of the previously approved non-trafficable roof to the east of the living room to a balcony space. It is deemed that the further increase in the width of this eastern facing balcony will result in adverse impacts and as such condition 2(d) is recommended to be retained. (See Discussion 7 in the Key Issues Below).

 

·         The applicant can apply through a Section 96 Application to modify the development including, but not limited to, modifying or removing conditions placed in the development consent.

 

·         The Original development was approved at an Ordinary Council Meeting on the 25th June 2013; Council cannot reassess the original application and can only consider the proposed changes applied for under the Section 96 application. The subject section 96 application seeks to amend the first floor balcony dimensions, these changes will not result in adverse impacts on the adjoining properties with regards to views or damage to adjoining properties. It should be noted that Property Value is not a consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

Unit 2, 8 Dundas Street

Objection

Comment

·          Objection to removing condition 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·          Objection to the overall development with regards to view loss, loss of property value and damage to adjoining properties.

·         A section 96 application was submitted and approved at a Planning Committee Meeting on the 11th February 2014, which modified Condition 2 (d) of the development consent and allowed for the conversion of the previously approved non-trafficable roof to the east of the living room to a balcony space. It is deemed that the further increase in the width of this eastern facing balcony will result in adverse impacts and as such condition 2(d) is recommended to be retained. (See Discussion 7 in the Key Issues Below).

 

·         The Original development was approved at an Ordinary Council Meeting on the 25th June 2013; Council cannot reassess the original application and can only consider the proposed changes applied for under the Section 96 application. The subject section 96 application seeks to amend the first floor balcony dimensions, these changes will not result in adverse impacts on the adjoining properties with regards to views or damage to adjoining properties. It should be noted that Property Value is not a consideration under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

·        

 

6.       Key Issues

 

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The RDCP 2013 stipulates the following relevant controls for privacy relating to balconies:

 

§ Focus upper floor balconies to the street or rear yard of the site. Any elevated balconies or balcony returns on the side facade must have a narrow width to minimise privacy impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal includes several balcony extensions are towards both Dundas Street and Oberon Street.

 

The extensions towards Oberon Street, seen in figure 3 below will not result in any adverse privacy impacts or overlooking

 

 

Figure 3: Balcony extensions facing Oberon Street Highlighted in green

 

Figure 4: View from proposed balcony extension towards adjoining properties

 

As seen in figure 4, which shows the view from the proposed balcony extension, the impact from these northern facing balcony extensions is negligible to the view achieved from the existing approved balconies; in addition the overlooking towards the adjoining properties is achieved from a distance of more than 25m over Oberon Street. It is considered that the northern balcony extensions will not result in any significant additional privacy impacts on the adjoining properties from what currently exists on site. The proposed balustrades are to be clear glass and will not result in any increase in significant perceivable bulk to the development when viewed from the streetscape or adjoining properties.

 

With regards to the balcony return section along the eastern façade (facing Dundas Street), The current approved balcony on the eastern façade has a depth of 1.5m (inclusive of the balustrade), the proposal seeks to increase this depth to 2.18m. Figure 5 below shows the location of the eastern facing balcony extension.

 

 

Figure 5: Balcony extensions facing Dundas Street Highlighted in green

 

Figure 6, shows images of the original and approved balconies, the original balcony and the approved balcony have their longer exposed sides facing Oberon Street and Dundas Street towards the ocean and Coogee Bay beyond, while the shorter (1.5m in depth) southern edge faces the adjoining properties bedroom window.   

Figure 6: The existing balcony and approved balcony viewed from the habitable room window of No 2 / 8 Dundas Street

 

It is considered that the proposed increase in balcony depth will result in a more useable and trafficable space, allowing for a greater number of people to gather directly opposite the bedroom window of the adjoining property, this will adversely affect both the visual and the acoustic privacy of the adjoining properties bedroom window. It should be noted that DA/400/2012/A granted approval for the maximum 1.5m wide inclusive of the balustrade as it was of a similar size as the existing balcony and the width restricted any large crowd gathering on the balcony.

 

It is considered that approving this eastern extension will go against the previous approval and result in significant adverse impacts on the adjoining properties. In order to maintain the existing levels of amenity to the adjoining properties bedroom window, Condition 2(d) of DA/400/2012/A is recommended to be retained, this condition states that the eastern facing balcony shall have a maximum width 1.5m measured from the external east-facing wall of the living room inclusive of the proposed glass balustrade.

 

§ Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy. Privacy screens must be permanently fixed and have a minimum height of not less than 1600mm as measured from the finished floor level. Privacy screens must achieve a minimum of 70% opaqueness and may be constructed with:

§ Translucent or obscured glazing

§ Fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically

§ Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades oriented away from the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings

 

The existing and approved balconies had no privacy screens affixed on any of its edges. It is not considered necessary to require the installation of a screening device under the proposed scheme as the balcony is primarily orientated towards the street and ocean views. It should be noted that balconies on adjoining properties are also without privacy screens in order to take in the ocean views and avoid disrupting or blocking the views of adjoining properties.

 

The proposal will not result in any increased impacts on the visual privacy of the adjoining properties; it is considered reasonable and acceptable and meets the relevant objective of the RDCP 2013 for visual privacy.

 

View Sharing

The subject section 96 (2) application proposes to extend the existing first floor balconies to the north and east by shifting the clear glass balustrades towards the edged of the existing concreted slab. There is no change to the concrete slab as it was approved as a non-trafficable area under the original Development Application.

 

As seen in figure 7 below, there will be no increase in visual or perceivable bulk by shifting the balustrades and they will not inhibit or impact views towards the ocean, this aided by the fact that the balustrades are to be clear glass. The balcony maintains a greater setback than the adjoining properties along Dundas Street

 

Figure 7: View from in front of the habitable room window of No 2 / 8 Dundas Street (Red shows proposed balustrade)

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that there will be no impacts from the proposal on views from the adjoining properties, the eastern balustrade is to be retained in its existing approved position to mitigate privacy impacts on the adjoining properties. The proposal will not result in any increase in view loss for the adjoining properties, the proposal is considered to meet the relevant controls and objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/400/2012/D to modify the approved development by increasing the size of the trafficable areas of the balconies accessed from the living and dining areas, at No. 6 Dundas Street, Coogee, subject to the following conditions:

 

Standard conditions

 

·      Amend Condition 1 to read:

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

DA 01 Rev B

MD+A Architects

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 02 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 13 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 14 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 15 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 16 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 20 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 21 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 22 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 23 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 24 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 25 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 26 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 27 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 28 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 29 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 30 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

DA 31 Rev B

24 March 2013

8 May 2013

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Single dwelling

429164S

21 June 2012

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

CC 07 (Revision E)

MD+A Architects

10/10/2013

04/04/2014

CC 09 (Revision E)

MD+A Architects

10/10/2013

04/04/2014

 

BASIX Certificate

No.

Dated

Received

Single dwelling

A166181

04/04/2014

04/04/2014

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

CC 03 (Revision E)

MD+A Architects

10/10/2013

31/07/2014

S96-50

MD+A Architects

8/8/2014

8/8/2014

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Clear glass glazing positioning diagram

Unnamed

1/11/2015

 

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

 

·      Retain Condition No. 2(d).

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D83/15

 

Subject:                  5/71-73 Dolphin Street, Coogee (DA/689/2015)

Folder No:               DA/689/2015

Author:                    Ryan Gill, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and rear addition to the existing unit on the second floor (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr M Handel

Owner:                    The Owners - Strata Plan No. 17997

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview24061.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 proposal seeks a variation to Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio by more than 10%.

 

1.  Proposal

 

The proposal is for internal alterations and a rear addition to unit five, which is located on the top floor of the existing three storey residential flat building. The addition involves enclosing part of the existing terrace area and extending that same terrace in a northward direction by 1.7m. The total additional floor area (i.e. that part of the terrace proposed to be enclosed) is 24.4m2.

 

2.  Site

 

The site is situated on the northern side of Dolphin Street and has a frontage of 10.21m and depth of 35.05m and an area of approximately 357.86m2. A three storey residential flat building presently occupies the site. Coogee oval is immediately south of the site and Coogee tennis courts are immediately west. Development in the locality is characterised by three to four storey residential flat buildings, 

 

3.  Submissions

 

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

 

4.  Key Issues

 

4.2.  Exception to development standards

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

 

The proposal contravenes Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio of Randwick LEP 2013 as summarised below:

 

Standard:

0.9:1 (322m2)

Site area:

357.86m2

Existing gross floor area:

457.9m2 (42%)

Proposed gross floor area:

482.3m2 (49%)

Percentage increase:

7%

Total percentage variation:

49%

 

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 floor space ratio standard are set out in clause 4.4(1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Council has received a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the floor space ratio development standard. The applicant argues that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary and states that there are sufficient grounds to justify contravening the standard.

 

Arguments are summarised as follows:

 

·      The existing site [gross floor area] is almost double the required FSR as such compliance would be impossible [in the context of any proposed additional floor space].

 

·      The proposed addition increases the FSR by 0.4 [0.6 in my estimate] and as such will have no material impact on existing conditions [presumably bulk and scale of the building].

 

·      The proposed design optimizes natural sunlight into the living spaces [thus improving the internal amenity of the unit].

 

The arguments provided by the applicant are generally supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The additional floor space proposed represents a negligible increase in the context of the existing gross floor area which is already significantly non-compliant with FSR requirements.

 

·      The addition will not be discernible from Dolphin Street and will not significantly alter the visual bulk and scale of the building when viewed from Brook Street. The addition is proposed in an area presently covered by an awning and flanked by 1.8m privacy screens as demonstrated in Figure 1 below. As such, the proposed addition will have a similar appearance to the existing built form.

 

Figure 1: Location of proposed addition

 

·      The proposed addition will not significantly reduce solar access to the neighbouring residential flat building, or otherwise compromise amenity.

 

·      The internal reconfiguration involves relocating living spaces to the northern end of the building which will improve the internal amenity of the unit and the comfort of occupants. The reconfiguration is not achievable without increasing floor area at the northern end of the unit due to the position of the stairwell.

 

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

On the basis of arguments made by the applicant and the supplementary discussion provided above, it is considered that strict compliance with the floor space ratio development standard is both unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance. It has also been established that there are sufficient planning grounds to justify contravention of the 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?

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest (or, at the very least, is not contrary to the interests of the public) as the development is consistent with both the relevant objectives of the floor space ratio standard and the objectives of zone R3 Medium Density Residential.

 

In relation to the objectives of the standard, the proposed development:

 

·      Is of a size and scale that is compatible with the built form in the locality which is characterised by three to four storey residential flat buildings, and

 

·      Responds to environmental and energy needs by optimising solar access to internal living spaces without compromising the amenity of adjoining development.

 

In relation to the objectives of zone R3, the proposed development:

 

·      Provides for the housing needs of the community in a medium density residential environment, and

 

·      Recognises and is compatible with the existing streetscape and built form, thus contributing to the established character of the area.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical floor space standard will not be detrimental to the use of the site and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance. Further, the proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

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 internal reconfiguration and addition to unit five within the existing residential flat building will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties and generally satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to floor space ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the development standard, 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/689/2015 for the refurbishment of unit five, at 71-73 Dolphin Street, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans and Documentation

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

 

a.     The roof form above the proposed addition shall be modified such that the new roof slopes away from the existing roof and is no higher than the         external wall height (i.e. the eave height) of the existing roof.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5/71-73 Dolphin Street, Coogee 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D84/15

 

Subject:                  153-157 Anzac Parade, Kensington (DA/900/2014)

Folder No:               DA/900/2014

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of all structures on site and construction part 3 to part 7 storey mixed use development comprising of 4 ground floor retail tenancies, 31 units and 2 levels of basement parking for 40 vehicles, associated site and landscape works

 

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               McGregor Westlake Architecture

Owner:                    M & P Georgouras Joint Venture

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview34401.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee based on a cost of works exceeding $2 million.

 


 

1.       Proposal

 

The application, as amended on the 25 September 2015, proposes the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a Part 3 to Part 7 storey mixed use development with basement parking.

 

Design scheme details the following:

 

·      External works including demolition of the existing three storey residential flat building and single storey health consulting room/commercial premises/dwelling house.

·      Basement parking for 40 vehicles, accessed via a driveway ramp from Addison Street. The basement area also accommodates 3 motor cycle spaces and 20 bicycle parking spaces, storage and lift services

·      Provision of 4 commercial tenancies at the ground floor level and 31 residential apartments between storeys 2 to 7, in the following arrangement:

Unit type

No. of units 

Commercial tenancies

4

One (1) bedroom

21

Two (2) bedroom

8

Three (3) bedroom

2

Total

31 units

 

The proposed building envelope requirements within Parcel A of the Block 08 controls as prescribed within the Kensington Town Centre are inclusive of the road reserve and the pedestrian footpath located immediately to the east of the subject site. However, the proposed building envelope is located wholly within the subject premises comprising of nos. 153-157 Anzac Parade and results in a shift of the building envelope further west within the subject site.  

 

 

Site inspections were carried out in November of 2015.


 

 

2.       History

 

2.1     Current application, DA/900/2014:

 

·      25 September 2015 –The applicant submitted amended plans, making a number of amendments in response to Council and Design Review Panel advice. Changes included:

 

o Deletion of study/store room on the south-western corner and replacement a balcony

o Reconfigure the floor layout of the units

o Alter the north facing balcony of the south-western unit at storeys 2, 3, 4 and 5

o Delete west facing bay window to northern unit at storeys 2, 3, 4 and 5

o Delete blade wall from northern  unit at storeys 5, 6 and 7

 

Storey no. 5:

o Reduce central building envelope and provide front setback of 1.5 metres from Anzac Parade

o Increase rear setback by 1.45m

 

Storey no. 6:

o Reduce rear setback by 1.45m at storey 6

o Increase front setback to 2.65m at northern eastern portion at storey 6

o Reduce number of east facing balconies at storey 6  

 

Storey no. 7:

o Reduce building envelope and provide balconies along the northern and southern edges of the dwelling.

 

3.       Site context

 

The subject site is presently made up of two (2) Torrens Title allotments of east/west orientation, known as 153-155 and 157-157A Anzac Parade, Kensington and described as follows:

 

Address

Lot & DP

153-155 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Lot 100, DP 866413

157-157A Anzac Parade, Kensington

Lot 3, DP 296559

 

Figure 1: Southern side of the subject site as viewed from Addison Street

 Figure 2: 157-157A Anzac Parade, Kensington

Figure 3: 153-155 Anzac Parade, Kensington

 

Figure 4: Existing car park and pedestrian footpath located on the eastern side of the dwelling.

Figure 5: South-eastern neighbhour on the opposite of Addison Street at no. 159-171 Anzac Parade, Kensington.

 

The site is located on the intersection of Anzac Parade and Addison Street with the primary street frontage of Anzac Parade directly to the east and the secondary street frontage of Addison Street to the south.

 

The site is rectangular in shape and topographically has a minor fall across the width of the site by approximately 400mm as measured from the edge of the Council footpath along Anzac Parade to the rear fence level adjacent no. 7 Addison Street.

 

Boundary

Length

Site area

Southern, Addison Street boundary

27.37m

760.6m2  

Eastern, Anzac Parade boundary

27.175m

Western, rear boundary

27.495m

Northern, side boundary

27.045m

 

The northern lot (153-155 Anzac Parade) is presently occupied by an existing three storey residential flat building comprising of 6 strata titled units and the southern lot (157-157A Anzac Parade) is occupied by an existing single storey health consulting room and retail premises.

 

Surrounding the development is characterized by a mixture of shop top housing developments along Anzac Parade comprising between 2 and 7 storey developments and to the rear low to medium density residential developments between one storey and 4 storeys in height. The subject site is considered to be one in transition.

 

To the immediate east of the subject site is a Council owned car park located which accommodates 9 motor vehicles (vehicular access from Addison Street) and beyond this is Anzac Parade and an existing seven storey shop housing development. To the immediate south are a pair of 4 storey residential flat buildings which are similar in size and scale and have been constructed within the last 50 years. To the rear of the subject is an existing three storey residential flat development and to the north is the Addison Hotel at four storeys in height with significant plant structures located on the rooftop.  

 

Neither the subject site nor its surrounds are noted to have any individual heritage significance within the provisions within RLEP 2012. The site and its surrounds are part of the Kensington Town Centre.

 

4.       Community Consultation

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the original and amended application in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, the following submissions were received:

 

·          604/14-18 Darling Street, Kensington

Issue

Comment

The proposed development will result in view loss impacts with unobstructed views from Addison Street and the Blue Mountains

 

The proposed development will not result in any significant view loss impacts. The western outlook of the objector’s premises from the upper floor level is expected to comprise mostly of natural vegetation and the existing built form along Addison Street. The proposal is compliant with the maximum height limit and as such any potential view loss impacts are consistent with the desired future character of development in the town centre. The easterly aspect from the objectors premises is considered to be a significant distance from any potential water views including oceans, bays and coastlines and any views of the city skylines and prominent landmark buildings are directly north of the objectors premises. The proposal will continue to comply with the planning principles adopted by Tenacity vs. Warringah Council. 

The size and scale of the development will contribute to overlooking impacts to a bedroom and living room.

The objector’s premises is significantly separated by 50m from the proposed development and will not result in any significant privacy impacts. 

The development will negatively impact the financial value of the objectors premises 

Property devaluation is not a matter that requires planning consideration as required under Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

The proposal will contribute to significant overshadowing impacts to the objectors premises.

The development will not result in any, overshadowing impacts to the objectors premises.

The subject site at 157-157A Anzac Parade appears to be of some heritage value which should be given consideration.

The existing single storey dwelling at no. 157-157A Anzac Parade is not listed as a site with heritage value under Schedule 5 of the RLEP2012 and is not located immediately adjacent any existing heritage items or heritage conservation areas.

 

·          1/7 Addison Street, Kensington

·          2/7 Addison Street, Kensington

·          3/7 Addison Street, Kensington

·          4/7 Addison Street, Kensington

·          4/23 Villiers Street, Kensington

·          9 Villiers Street, Kensington

 

Geotechnical and structural concerns:

 

Issue

Comment

The recommendations provided within the geotechnical report do not substantiate the excavation works given the existing soil conditions.

 

The objector requests that all excavation and building works be setback 12 metres from the rear boundary.

 

The objectors are concerned with the presence of underground water and its location within a localised low point.

 

The objectors are concerned with the extent of dewatering from the subject site. 

 

 

An additional setback to the rear neighbour at no. 7 Addison Street is not required given the building envelope will generally maintain a similar alignment as the neighbouring dwellings to the north within the existing building block pattern. See Key Issues Section.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the application and suitable conditions of consent have been included to minimise any adverse impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. This includes requirements in terms of the design and construction of the basement level to address the need for dewatering and  groundwater impacts; the basement level be designed by a structural engineer with details of the proposed methods of managing groundwater and waterproofing prior to the issue of a construction certificate and a report prepared by a suitably qualified and geotechnical/hydrogeological engineer must be submitted detailing the proposed methods of excavation, support of adjoining properties and dewatering.

The subject application does not include a structural engineers report. The objector is concerned that the development will compromise the structural integrity of the proposed development.

A suitable condition of consent has been included that a report be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced professional engineer in providing geotechnical details which confirms the suitability and stability of the site for development and the adequacy of the development and adjoining land. In addition to this, details are to be provided to demonstrate that the proposed methods of excavation, support and construction are suitable for the site and should not result in any damage to the adjoining premises, buildings or any public place, as a result of the works and any associated vibration.

 

 

Planning concerns:

Issue

Comment

The proposal does not include a rezoning application for the public car park located on the eastern side of the subject site.

 

The proposed development should include the acquisition of the Council carpark located forward of the building line. The additional monetary expense involved in acquiring this parcel should not be a consideration in forgoing its purchase.

The application does not include the car park as part of the development proposal and will remain wholly within the subject premises at no. 153-157 Anzac Parade. The subject site is zoned B2: Local Centre and the proposal is a permissible use in accordance with the RLEP2012.  

The proposal does not include the car park located on the eastern side of the site as part of the development scheme. This has resulted in a building envelope located in much closer proximity to the western neighbour. 

Refer to the Key Issues Section for further details.

The proposal does not comply with Clause 4.1.1: Site Amalgamation in that the development comprises of a site area less than 900sqm.

The description within Clause 4.3.8: Block 8 specifies that should site amalgamation result in Defined Parcel A, this parcel may be developed despite being slightly smaller in size than the 900sqm minimum for corner sites. As per the Block 08: Proposed Layout, no. 153-157 Anzac Parade is located within Parcel A and proposes amalgamation of the Parcel A lots. Subsequently variation to Clause 4.1.1 is acceptable in providing a site area less than 900sqm given the overall design scheme represents one that generally provides a reasonable level of amenity to the adjacent premises.   

The proposal development does not include any ‘roof features’ and is contrary to the requirements of the DCP.

Refer to Key Issues Section for further details.

The proposal consists of a flat pitched roof and does not provide any discernible features that represent a roof form.  Comparisons to the existing streetscape are considered to be unsubstantiated.

The proposed building envelope does not comply with the Block 08: Addison Street to Todman Avenue Controls. 

Refer to the Key Issues Section for further details.

The floor to ceiling height of the Mezzanine level is at 2.2 metres and will compromise the use of this space. 

The floor to ceiling height of the mezzanine level is adequate as it will operate as an ancillary space that is attached to the commercial space below.

The proposed development should provide a transition in height that delineates from the subject site to the western neighbour.

The proposed development represents a stepped built form which transitions from the Anzac Parade frontage to Addison Street. The development rises to approximately 24.8 metres from the south-eastern corner of the site and steps down to 15.61 metres building height as measured from the street edge along the Addison Street frontage to approximately 12 metres measured from the top of main hipped roof form at no. 7 Addison Street. The stepped nature of the built form from the east and lowering towards the west achieves an appropriate scale from the higher elements along Anzac Parade to the lower forms along Addison Street.

The proposal will reduce the amount of solar access to the east facing units at no. 7 Addison Street

The east facing ground floor unit will receive reduced solar access during the morning period. The preservation of solar access to this window is unachievable given a compliant building envelope as envisaged within the block by block controls would overshadow the windows. Further, the ground floor nature of the window and easterly aspect makes it invariably difficult to preserve morning sunlight into this window.

The proposal will result in adverse shadowing impacts at no. 9 Addison Street.

Most of the additional overshadowing as a result of the development will fall primarily on Addison Street. Council’s calculations demonstrate that the north-facing windows and balconies of the immediately affected southern neighbours at no. 2 and 4 Addison Street will maintain the required three hours of direct solar access during the early morning periods and late afternoon periods throughout the day between the hours of 9am – 3pm. With regards to the western neighbour at no. 7 Addison Street, the adjoining neighbour will be impacted during the morning periods only. The reduction of the solar access less than the required three hours is in respect to the eastern orientated position of the window openings. Having regard to the proposed density of the subject site as demonstrated by the block by block controls the east facing windows will as a consequence receive less than the required three hours of solar access.

The proposal will result in adverse shadowing impacts.

Most of the additional overshadowing as a result of the development will fall primarily on Addison Street. Council’s calculations demonstrate that the north-facing windows and balconies of the immediately affected southern neighbours at no. 2 and 4 Addison Street will maintain the required three hours of direct solar access during the early morning periods and late afternoon periods throughout the day between the hours of 9am – 3pm. With regards to the western neighbour at no. 7 Addison Street, the adjoining neighbour will be impacted during the morning periods only. The reduction of the solar access less than the required three hours is in respect to the eastern orientated position of the window openings, and is a consequence the block by block controls rather than an inappropriate design.

The proposal will contribute to noise impacts to the objectors premises given the reduced setbacks provided and exceedence to the no. of storeys to the western portion of the building to the western neighbour. 

The western most portion of the development is not expected to contribute to adverse noise impacts to the objectors premises. A condition of consent has been included that the balcony and associated door opening located on the first floor level immediately adjacent to the western boundary be deleted from the plans. In addition to this, no windows are located along the western elevation at the first, second and third floor levels and the single window at the fourth floor level will not contribute to any unreasonable adverse noise impacts to the western neighbour. The balconies are also recessed within the built form which will minimise noise transmission from the proposed development to the objectors premises. The development is acceptable in complying with the Clause 4.7.1 Acoustic Privacy within the RDCP2013. 

The proposed building envelope does not comply with the Block 08: Addison Street to Todman Avenue Controls. 

Refer to the Key Issues Section for further details.

The proposal is significant in size and scale and will adversely contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the existing streetscape.

Refer to the Key Issues Section for further details.

The western elevation will result in significant overlooking impacts to the objectors premises in particular the rear private open space.

The proposed development will continue to comply with the objectives of visual privacy in that the development will minimise overlooking into the internal and external living areas of the adjacent buildings. The west facing balconies provide an outlook separation to the rear private open space of the objector’s premises by a minimum of 12 metres which is acceptable in providing a reasonable level of privacy. In addition to this, the west facing window is opposite the objectors premises and is adjacent a bedroom window which is not considered to be a high use room such as a living area. The development will provide a reasonable level of privacy to the neighbouring premises. 

The proposal will compromise the extent of ventilation given the nil setback from the northern boundary. 

The block by block controls envisaged for the site requires that new developments be setback nil from the side boundary. Notwithstanding this, an existing building separation between the subject site and the northern neighbour will continue to provide natural ventilation to the objector’s premises at the rear.  

The objector requests that no consent has been granted from the adjacent neighbour to construct up to the property boundary without the neighbours consent.

Neighbours consent is not required to determine whether a development is acceptable in being constructed up to the respective property boundary. The assessment provides an opportunity to assess the impact of the proposed works and compliance with the relevant planning policies.

 

Parking and Traffic concerns:

Issue

Comment

The proposal does not comply with the minimum parking requirements within the RDCP2013.

 

Refer to the Key Issues Section for further details.

The proposed lower basement parking level will be located within the water table and result in the deletion of 22 parking spaces.

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the application and suitable conditions of consent have been included to minimise any adverse impacts to the neighbouring dwellings associated with dewatering.

 

The construction of a new vehicular access in close proximity to the intersection of Anzac Parade and Addison Street will result in a traffic and pedestrian hazard.

The proposed vehicular crossing into the subject premises is setback more than 45 metres from the intersection of Anzac Parade and Addison Street. The separation will provide ample opportunity for motorists to safely enter and exit into the basement parking and adequate visibility of pedestrians to oncoming traffic flows.

 

The objector seeks greater clarification is sort on the location of the driveway entry.

The driveway entry is located on the southern side of the dwelling with vehicular access from Addison Street at the rear of the subject site.

The objector is concerned of the implications of the development and the proposed south-east light rail along Anzac Parade.

The application was referred to Transport NSW and Council’s Strategic Planning Officer. No objections have been received subject to the development complying with the ‘development near rail corridors – Interim Guidelines and a condition of consent be included that Construction Traffic Management Plan be included as part of the proposal. The applicant is also required to notify the Transport for New South Wales should the works be carried out concurrently with the light rail. 

 

·          Ausgrid

Issue

Comment

The developer is required to make a formal submission to Ausgrid with a duly completed connection form prior to the commencement of works.

 

The works must include:

·      Changes in electrical load requirements

·      Changes to Ausgrid’s infrastructure (i.e. asset relocations, commissioning substations)

·      Works affecting Ausgrid’s easements, leases and right of ways

·      Changing the gradients of any roads or paths

·      Changing the level of roads or footpaths

·      Widening or narrowing of roads

·      Closing roads or laneways to vehicles

·      In all cases Ausgrid is to have 24 hour access to all its assets.

 

A condition of consent has been included that 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 the Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works.

 

The owner/builder 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.

 

 

Key Issues

 

·      Randwick Development Control Plan 2012

 

B7: Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

 

Clause 3.2: Vehicle Parking Rates

 

D1: Kensington Town Centre

 

Council/s Development Engineer has reviewed the parking requirements for the proposal and provided the following assessment:

 

“The unit mix is 21 x 1 bedroom, 8 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 3 bedroom. There are 4 commercial tenancies. Under Council’s DCP the development would require 48 spaces and therefore is deficient by 8 spaces. The applicant has submitted supplementary traffic advice in support of the parking provision. The advice was prepared by McLaren Traffic Engineering and it includes a parking survey. The report identifies that the residential component of the development is covered by SEPP 65. In this regard the recent Amendment No. 3 to the SEPP references Clause 30 which in turn references Part 3J of the Apartment Design Code (ADG). Objective 3J-1 of the ADG looks at proximity to public transport, (including proximity to light rail). Given that completion of the light rail project is a period of time off Council maintains that the application should be assessed against the DCP.

 

Council notes the report’s reference to the parking deficiency of the existing development and the findings of the parking survey. Council also acknowledges that construction of an additional parking level is not practical. Notwithstanding the parking provision is less than that required by Council’s DCP it is supportable.

 

Motorbike and bicycle parking complies with the DCP.”

 

The applicant has provided parking survey data that indicates that the proposed parking deficiency could be accommodated within close proximity to the subject site. As the development site is well served by public transport the deficiency is acceptable.

 

Building Envelope – Block 08 Layout

The subject site is located within Defined Parcel A of the Block 08 controls which includes nos. 153-157 Anzac Parade and a Council owned car park and pedestrian footpath directly to the east as one amalgamated lot. The building envelope as shown within the Block 08 controls proposes that the building envelope be inclusive of the Council car park in defining the built form controls of the site. The description of the Block 08 controls of Addison Street to Todman Avenue specifies that:

 

“The Kensington streetscape would benefit from realignment of the footpath to achieve a continuous built form as Anzac Parade sweeps around the corner. However, this is dependent on the outcome of the current planning for light rail route alignment, and implications for existing utility services”.

 

…”Council may consider the sale of land currently in the public domain in order to achieve this streetscape benefit. These controls are based on the built form which could be achieved should such a sale (including suitable off-set arrangements for the existing on-street car parking) be concluded. The sale would also need to address the access to existing infrastructure services located within the road reserve (the sewer, Sydney water main, AGL gas line and a Telecom line)”.

 

However, the proposed development does not seek to include the Council car park as part of an amalgamated lot. The Block 08 envelope assumes that the site would be amalgamated with the parking area in front, however this is not achievable in the context of the new light rail service. Currently there is no agreement between Council, the RMS and the applicant in the acquisition of the Council car park and similarly to the northern adjoining lot at no. 147-151 Anzac Parade in acquiring a portion of the pedestrian footpath to achieve a realignment of the footpath along this portion of Anzac Parade. Therefore a more regular building envelope is proposed which is more in line with the other buildings within the urban block. The reconfiguration of the building envelope is appropriate in providing a reasonable development expectation on the subject premises in particular given its B2: Local Centre zoning and providing continuity of the built form pattern that is envisaged by matching the building alignments to the adjacent development.

 

The shift of the building envelope wholly within the parcel of no. 153-157 Anzac Parade will reduce the building separation between the subject site and the rear neighbour at no. 7 Addison Street. However, the development will not result in significant environmental impacts to the rear neighbour with particular regards to the solar access, visual privacy and bulk and scale impacts as discussed within the following sections of this report.  

 

Clause 4.2.4: Building Heights

 

Clause 4.3.8: Addison Street to Todman Avenue

 

The Council controls specify that within the defined Parcel A of the Block 8 building envelope layout be a maximum of six (6) stories located centrally within the site and south-eastern corner, five storeys to the rear and four storeys being provided on the eastern and southern street edge of Anzac Parade and Addison Street. As shown below: 

 

 

Council’s DCP clearly anticipates a predominant building height of 4 to 6 storeys and only allows an additional storey within an articulated roof space that occupies only 40% of the level below. The DCP also allows the corner to be expressed by a vertical extension of the street wall height. The proposal is consistent with these outcomes subject to the upper level being further refined in terms of its roofscape. As discussed earlier, due to the exclusion of the car park in the road reserve and pedestrian footpath directly to the east from the envelope, it is considered appropriate that a similar building footprint to match the alignment to those within the urban block be applied to the site. Subsequently, this would constitute to a repositioning of the building envelope requirements to be located wholly within the subject site.  

 

Having regard to the Clause 4.3.8 and Clause 4.2.4: Building Heights, a consideration of the objectives for building heights is carried out as part of a merits based assessment:

 

The objectives for building heights are as follows:

·      To ensure appropriate scale relationship between new development and: street width; local context; adjacent dwellings and Contributory Buildings.

·      To achieve well-proportioned buildings.

·      To maintain public view corridors from the east side of Randwick Racecourse over the Centre to the Monastery of the Missionary of the Sacred Heart

·      To ensure appropriate management of overshadowing, access to sunlight and privacy

·      To ensure appropriate floor to celiing height within buildings

·      To achieve a visual transition between the heights of buildings on Anzac Parade the heights of buildings ‘behind’ the main street.


The proposed building height and the number of storeys will be consistent in size and scale with the immediately adjacent south-eastern neighbour at no. 159-171 Anzac Parade comprising of a seven storey development with a building height of 23.45 metres as measured from street level. The development is compatible with the building height plane of the newer developments in particular the eastern and south-eastern neighbour when measured vertically along Anzac Parade.  It is noted that whilst the mezzanine commercial space represents an additional storey, it is contained within the height of the ground floor commercial level and does contribute in any significant way to the overall height of the building.

 

The form and massing of the top most level is acceptable given the development will provide for a reduced building envelope which occupies 75% of the building envelope and is significantly below the maximum gross floor area requirement of 80-85% of the building envelope as per Clause 4.2.1: New Built Form. The reduced building envelope is acceptable in minimizing the appreciable visual bulk and scale from the existing streetscape.

 

The seventh storey is setback 6 metres from Anzac Parade to the property boundary and will create a visual transition from the lower floor levels to the street alignment. The top most floor level comprises of a reduced building footprint with a depth of 9.95 metres from the northern end and 13.3 metres from the southern end of the building. The building depths are acceptable in establishing a well-proportioned relationship to the lower levels of the building and an appropriate scale to the local street heights and setbacks. The development will distinguish the base, middle and top section of the building envelope and relates to the scale and mass of the building.

 

The seventh storey level will not contribute to any unreasonable overshadowing impacts to the immediately adjacent dwellings. The north-facing balconies and windows to the southern neighbours at no. 2 and 4 Addison Street will maintain the required three hours of direct solar access during the early morning and late afternoon periods. The additional shadows cast to the western neighbour will shadow the southern-most east facing windows during the hours of 9am – 10am only. The proposal will comply in providing a reasonable level of solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and will comply with Council’s controls.   

 

The proposal will maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy to the neighbouring dwellings. The seventh storey level provides a building separation of approximately 13 metres and is considered to be a significantly setback from the rear neighbour at no. 7 Addison Street. The proposal will not result in any overlooking impacts to the east facing window openings given the outlook aspect is considered to be oblique given the building height. 

 

The seventh storey building height positioned on the south-eastern corner is compatible in terms of size and scale with the seven storey corner element of the eastern neighbouring premises at no.14-18 Darling Street. The built form at the south-eastern corner will remain consistent with the existing streetscape presentation and will not be out of character with the newer developments along Anzac Parade. The upper storey runs parallel to the adjacent structure and will continue to emphasise the prominent corner position and visually define the street intersection of Addison Street.  

 

The proposed development will continue to reinforce the street edge by providing vertical elements of articulation including window openings, blade walls and balustrading in defining the street edge.

 

The building envelope as set by the Block 08 plan specifies a maximum building envelope of 4 storeys along the southern portion adjacent Addison Street. However, being a corner site it is able to be expressed by a vertical extension of the street wall height. As such, there is fifth and six storey extensions are acceptable in that the development will not contribute to appreciable visual bulk and scale amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The area above the 4th storey provides a building separation of 10.2 metres to the rear neighbour and will continue to provide natural light, and cross ventilation to the east facing windows of no. 7 Addison Street.  Whilst the proposal does not comply with the 6m minimum setback to strata building having a minimum setback of 3m, this only occurs at a building length of approximately 8m and an equivalent height of 4 storeys. The majority of the rear setback is over 10m and is associated with approximately 65% of the rear elevation.

 

The form and massing is confined to the southern side boundary and is appropriate in considering the development will result in greater definition of the street corner of Anzac Parade and Addison Street. The building length at five stories in height is also consistent with the size and scale of the neighbouring buildings within the immediate streetscape.

 

The development will continue to provide a transition from east to west with the highest point within the centre of the block at 7 storeys to 5 storeys along the street frontage of Addison Street to 3 storeys to the adjacent neighbour at no. 7 Addison Street. The stepped nature of the built form will respond positively to the street and the surrounding buildings in transitioning from larger scale developments along Anzac Parade to the lower built form densities along Addison Street.

 

The additional overshadowing cast from the upper levels will fall primarily on the front setback of no. 7 Addison Street and the road reserve. The proposal will not contribute to any significant visual privacy impacts to the rear neighbour. A condition of consent has been included that the balcony and associated door opening adjacent to the western boundary be deleted from the amended plans. Notwithstanding this, the western external wall does not comprise of any window openings, aside from the fifth storey level. The window opening at the fifth storey will not result in any overlooking impacts to the rear western neighbour given the oblique aspect. 

 

The sixth storey built form only  encroaches 800mm within the five storey envelope. The minor departure from the building envelope controls will not contribute to any adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwelling in terms of overshadowing, visual privacy and view loss impacts.

 

The proposed building envelope is significantly setback from the rear boundary at 10.32 metres and will not compromise the visual amenity from the western neighbour. The increase to the building height will be imperceptible from the Anzac Parade and Addison Street frontage.   

 

The proposed built form is acceptable in considering the development will remain compatible with the size and scale of the adjoining developments and will not attribute to any adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring premises.

 

Clause 4.2.3: Articulation Zone

 

The proposal includes balcony depths of 2.65m along the front façade of Anzac Parade. However, no articulation zone is provided along the side elevation along Addison Street. The side elevation does not provide an articulation zone with minimum depth of 600mm or the maximum depth of 2.5 metres. The lack of providing a suitable articulation zone is acceptable given the façade reinforces the corner by providing a vertical emphasis with the vertically proportioned window and door placements which relate to the other façade features including the balustrading provided to the Juliet balconies along the southern façade. The proposal will continue to provide a degree of visual interest along the southern elevation fronting Addison Street and will continue to reinforce the character of the corner at the intersection of Anzac Parade.    

 

Clause 4.5.1: Access for Vehicles – Rights of Carriageway

 

The block 08 controls nominates a right of carriageway be provided at the rear of the subject site as an alternative to providing vehicular access from Anzac Parade. This requires that the allotments within Block 08 coordinate development between each other to ensure equitable access is provided at the rear of the allotments with a 6 metre wide two way access in entering and exiting the basement parking level. The proposal does not comply with Council’s controls given the proposal provides a ramp of 3 metres and subsequently only allows for one vehicle in entering and exiting the basement parking area. The non-compliance to the rights of carriageway requirements is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The right of carriageway to the northern end of subject site of the Block 08 plan requires a dog-leg turning maneuver which cannot be feasibly accommodated with a 6 metre driveway width. A much more generous width is required for vehicles to safely enter and exit the subject site in a two-way direction. In considering the difficulties in accommodating this requirement it is unlikely that vehicles would be able to use the proposed vehicular access and subsequently the driveway would be unusable even with demonstrating compliance with a 6 metre driveway width.

 

·      It is likely that vehicles of Block 08 would utilize vehicular access of no. 147-157 Anzac Parade to enter and exit Anzac Parade given it results in one less turning maneuver than entering and existing from Addison Street.

 

·      The subject site is physically constrained considering the nominal building depths in comparison to the northern allotments and cannot provide a direct right of carriageway access through block 08 without avoiding a dog-leg vehicular movement. 

 

In considering the above, the compliance with Council’s controls is unreasonable and unnecessary and the departure from the 6 metre width to the right of carriageway is acceptable.

 

Clause 4.6.9: Roof Forms

 

The controls for roof forms within the Kensington Town Centre are to promote the design of interesting roof forms and its contribution to the city skyline. The numerical requirements to the maximum building height is measured to the underside of the topmost ceiling and the difference to the maximum permissible height of buildings as prescribed within the RLEP2012 is to accommodate a roof form. The proposed development does not comply with this numerical requirement in that most of the seventh storey exceeding the maximum sixth storey requirement is positioned into the building height designated to be provided as a roof form. However, it should be noted that the proposed development will only occupy 75% of the building envelope and is significantly below the maximum gross floor area requirement of 80-85% of the building envelope. As such, the redistribution of the allowable floor area, albeit at the 7th story, results in a more slender building providing for greater separation to the rear.

 

The submitted plans have been assessed and the roof form does not effectively integrate or articulate the seventh storey level in containing the bulk of the top most level into the roof form as prescribed within the RDCP2012. The hipped roof and clerestory windows appear as eclectic elements which does not appropriately define roof form. Consequently, a condition of consent has been included with the following:

 

The upper level roof form must be amended so that it provides a more cohesive and articulated element that reduces the visual presence of the seventh storey and makes it more recessive in the streetscape. Details to be submitted for approval by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Clause 4.6.10: Solar Access, Overshadowing and Natural Light

 

The Council controls require that a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight should be maintained to the private open space areas and the habitable room windows of the adjoining development between the hours of 9am – 3pm, between the 21 of June. Council’s calculations have been carried out with regards to the proposed solar access impacts to the immediately adjoining dwellings.

 

The east facing windows of the rear nieghbour at no. 7 Addison Street will remain unaffected from the shadows cast by the development between the hours of 11am – 3pm. The rear neighbour will maintain more than the required three hours of direct solar access to the east facing windows and will comply with Councils controls for solar access and overshadowing.  

 

The neighbouring dwellings to the south at no. 2 and no. 4 Addison Street will also maintain the required three hours of direct solar access. The shadows cast from the proposed development will fall mostly on Addison Street and the existing four storey residential flat buildings directly to the south. The north facing windows and balconies to the southern neighbour will maintain the three hours during the early morning and late afternoon periods of the day. The southern neighbours in particular at no. 2 Addison Street will be reduced during noon only. In considering the above, the extent of the additional overshadowing impacts is acceptable and will demonstrate compliance with Clause 4.6.10 for solar access, overshadowing and natural light of the RDCP2013. 

 

Notwithstanding this, the Council controls also require that 75% of the apartments receive at least a minimum of three hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the 21 June. The proposed development does not comply with less than 75% of the apartments receiving less than three hours of direct solar access. However, in considering the orientation of the subject allotment and its location on the southern end of Block 8, there is no scope to maximize the northerly aspect given the nil side setbacks to the building block as dictated by the Block 08 controls. Consequently, it is difficult to demonstrate compliance with the required 75% of direct solar access to all apartments. The proposed development will generally comply with the objectives of solar access in optimizing solar access to habitable rooms, where possible through sensitive urban design including splayed north-easterly and north-westerly orientated balconies to the front and rear of the building block to maximize the morning and afternoon sun and north facing clerestory windows to the upper floor apartments. The proposal will comply with the objectives of the RDCP2013 and the departure to the control is acceptable in this instance.       

 

Clause 4.6.12: Visual Privacy

 

The RDCP2013 controls for visual privacy require windows and balconies to minimise overlooking into neighbouring apartments, balconies and buildings. The controls also specify that where the separation is less than 12 metres, privacy measures including screening devices should be provided. The proposed development will not contribute to any significant overlooking impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The proposed west facing balconies located on the third and fifth storey provide a building separation of approximately 11.6 metres which is less than the minimum 12 metre requirement. The minor departure is not considered to be significant and the nominal size and location of the balconies adjoining bedrooms are not expected to be used for high use or entertainment purposes. The opportunities for overlooking are minimal and the variation is acceptable in providing a reasonable level of privacy.

 

Further, the proposal also includes the construction of west facing balconies from the second and fourth storey level with a building separation of 10 metres to the east facing windows of the western neighbour. To minimise the visual privacy impacts a condition of consent has been included that a 1.6 metre high opaque privacy screen be installed along the western edge of the balconies of apartment 8 and 20. The west facing balcony at the sixth storey level from apartment no. 29 is acceptable given it is significantly elevated above the adjoining window openings and any possible overlooking will be oblique. The proposal will comply with the objectives of visual privacy.   

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal has been assessed against the RLEP2012 and the RDCP2013 and will be consistent with the character of desired future development as envisaged in the Kensington Town Centre. The building envelope will generally comply with the objectives of the Block 08 controls within the Kensington Town Centre and will remain compatible with a number of newer developments within the existing streetscape along the Anzac Parade corridor. The exclusion of the car park and the pedestrian walkway will establish a more regular building envelope that will remain consistent with the building envelope pattern of the northern allotments. The proposal will not result in a development that will significantly compromise the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings with regards to solar access, visual and acoustic privacy, views or adverse bulk and scale. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/900/2014 for the demolition of all structures on site and construction part 3 to part 7 storey mixed use development comprising of 4 ground floor retail tenancies, 31 units and 2 levels of basement parking for 34 cars, associated site and landscape works at No. 153-157 Anzac Parade, Kensington, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

CBD and South East Light Rail (CSLER) Project

2.       The acoustic report labeled ‘153-157 Anzac Parade, Kensington – Acoustic Assessment for Development Application’, dated 29 October 2014 and received by Council on the 17 December 2014 shall be amended to include predicted noise impacts from the proposed CBD and South East Light Rail (CSLER) Project. An amended Acoustic Report shall be submitted and approved by Council prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

3.       The proposed works shall be carried out in accordance with the ‘Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads – Interim Guideline’ (2008) prepared by the Department of Planning and environment.

 

4.       A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be prepared with consultation and concurrence received from Transport for New South Wales (TfNSW) prior to the commencement of any works. The CTMP must include any potential impacts to general traffic, cyclists, pedestrians and bus services within the vicinity of the site from construction vehicles during the construction of the proposed works. The CTMP should include the cumulative construction impacts of projects including the CBD and South East Light Rail Project. Should any impacts be identified, the duration of the impacts and measures proposed to mitigate these should be clearly identified and included in the CTMP.

 

5.       Should the commencement of works be carried out concurrently with any works associated with the CBD and South East Light Rail Project further consultation must be engaged with Transport for New South Wales.

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The upper level roof form must be amended so that it provides a more cohesive and articulated element that reduces the visual presence of the seventh storey and makes it more recessive in the streetscape. Details are to be submitted for approval by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

b.     An amended BASIX certificate must be consistent with the plans referenced in Condition 1 of this determination and a copy shall be submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority prior to an construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

c.     The approved plans are to be amended to include a minimum of 20% of dwellings be converted to adaptable dwelling and designed and constructed to a minimum Class C Certification under AS 4299 Adaptable Housing. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

d.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the western edge of the first floor deck of apartments 8 and 20. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

e.     The following windows must have a minimum sill height of  1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·      First floor, west facing dining/living room window (apartment 8)

·      Third floor, west facing dining/living room window (apartment 20)

 

f.      The first floor level balcony located immediately adjacent to the western boundary and the associated balustrading and supporting columns shall be deleted. The sliding door shall be replaced with a suitably sized window and the window must have a minimum sill height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height. The BASIX certificate shall be amended to reflect the above changes.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 153-157A Anzac Parade, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D85/15

 

Subject:                  11 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/535/2015)

Folder No:               DA/535/2015

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing structures, construction of part 2/part 3 storey semi-detached dwellings with strata subdivision, garages to front, swimming pools to rear, landscaping and associated works.

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Elfim Elski

Owner:                    Adam Gruszka

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview34033.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

Proposal

 

The development application proposes to demolish the existing structures on the site and strata subdivision of the land into two Torrens Title lots to allow for the construction a new part two storey and part three storey semi-detached dwelling houses with garages to the front, associated landscaping and swimming pools to the rear.

 

The lower ground level for each of the dwellings consists of the guest bedroom 4, bathroom, laundary, plant and equitement for air conditioing units and pools, deck/terrace areas and punge pools.

 

The first floor level consists of the main living areas and each dwelling contains living, kitchen, dining, study, w/c, entry hall, , rear terraces off the living rooms, a single garage space and tadem car spaces in front of the garages accessed off Bond Street and bins and water tanks to the north west and south eastern sides of the building opposite the garages.

 

The second floor for each of the dwellings consists of the two bedrooms, a W/C, a parents retreat with walk in wordrobe and an enuite, rear balcony off parents retreat and julit balcony off bedrooms 2 & 3.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 16 September 2015 to address concerns raised by Council in relation to the non-compliance with the building height standard, minimum soft landscaping control and to address view sharing.  The following changes have been made:

 

·          Floor levels have been lowered by 1.0 metre.

·          Rear parapet roof heights have been lowered by 1.1 metre to comply with statutory 9.5m roof height.

·          Front parapet roof heights have been lowered by 0.4 metre to compy with statutory 9.5m roof height.

·          The rear setback of 11A residence has been increased to align with No. 11B to improve lateral view sharing across the subject site.

·          Air-conditioning plant has been relocated to lower ground level within sub-floor area to facilitate acoustic attenuation of plant noise.

·          The landscape design has been altered to restrict the height of planting along western boundary to minimise impact of uphill neighbours' views while providing a reasonable perimeter landscape buffer and screening.

·          The area of soft landscaping has been increased to comply with Council preferred minimum soft landscaping control.

·          Area calculations have been clearly delineated on plans.

 

The assessment is based on these amended plans received by Council on 16 September 2015.

 

Site

 

The subject site, 11 Bond Street, Maroubra, is located on the southern side of Bond Street between Bona Vista Avenue and Duncan Street, Maroubra.  It has a frontage to Bond Street of 15.24m, a depth of 54.255m; and a site area of 826.8m². The site has a cross fall of between 740mm to 1.79m from west to east and a fall of up to approximately 8m from the front to rear. 

 

The subject site is currently occupied by a slit level single dwelling.  zThe neighbouring dwelling to the north west at no.’s 7-9 Bond Street are split level duplex dwellings and to the south east at no.15 Bond Street is a two storey dwelling which is currently under construction.

 

The surrounding area predominately consists of single to two storey dwelling houses, attached dual occupancy and semi-detached dwellings which some of the buildings have split level due to the significant fall of the site towards the rear.  There are a number of old residential flat buildings in the immediate vicinity.

 

Submissions

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

 

3 & 4/4 Bond Street Maroubra (Submission prepared by Evan Lee Pty Ltd)

5 Bond Street Maroubra

9 Bond Street Maroubra (Submission prepared by Willana and associates)

15 Bond Street Maroubra

Issue

Comment

View sharing

The proposal will have significant impacts upon their properties with respect to view loss.

 

The landscaping of tall vegetation on the common wall boundary with no. 9 Bond Street will cause significant view loss of the beach and land water interface.

 

No. 5 Bond Street does not object to the amended proposal however, has noted the following minor observation:

 

1.  The second height pole at the rear of the building would appear to be the floor level of the balcony and not to the top of the balustrades.

2.  The balconies at the rear of the building show frameless glass balustrades along the sides of the balconies, would like to confirm that they prefer glass balustrades to preserve views.

 

Refer to Key Issues under View sharing assessment which recommends that the south western corner of the building and rear balconies on the first floor level be reduced in depth to improve viewing corridors.

 

Height of Building

The proposed development exceeds Council’s height requirements both under the RLEP 2012 and DCP 2013 resulting in significant view loss impacts.

The proposed development complies with the height of building standard in the LEP 2012.  The non-compliant wall height is addressed in the Key Issues Section.

Gas flue

Object to any gas flue located on the north-western elevation.

The amended plans have relocated the gas flue to the centre at the rear of the dwellings away from neighbouring properties.

The front and rear setbacks

The proposed front and rear building lines do not align with neighbouring properties resulting in view loss and overshadowing impacts.

 

The dwellings are setback 6.27m from the front boundary and 22.2m from the rear boundary which are generally consistent with the predominant front and rear setbacks of neighbouring dwellings in the street.

Solar access and Energy efficiency

The development causes significant overshadowing impacts to no. 15 Bond Street.

Refer to Key Issues under Solar access to neighbouring development.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

The windows on the first floor level on the south eastern boundary over looks into their master bedroom.

 

The first floor balcony has no privacy screen and looks directly into their master bedroom.

 

 

The window on the first floor level to the parents retreat is off set from the neighbouring window openings and faces the neighbour’s blank wall.  The sill height of this window is at RL 41.0 whereas the neighouring window has a sill height of RL 38.2.

 

A condition is included which requires 1.6m high privacy screens to be installed to the ground floor terrace and first floor balcony to minimise direct overlooking and addresses the objectors concerns.

 

Garage, carports and driveways

The proposed front entry doors are recessed 3.4m behind the front façade not complying with the control.

 

The proposed two driveways and carspaces to the front of the dwelling will dominate the streetscape and reduce on-street parking.

 

 

A condition is included which requires the front entry doors to be recessed a maximum of 2m from the front building line to meet the control.  As a result of the above, there will be a minor increase in the FSR; however, the FSR will still comply with the control standard in the LEP 2012.

 

The garages are incorporated within the design of the dwellings to soften the visual dominance of the parking facilities.  The second off-street car spaces are located within the internal driveway in front of the garages.

 

The front setback is considered to be sympathetic and the transition in the built form will respect the neighbouring front setbacks and the streetscape.   The driveways have been tapered into the front street alignment and the landscaping proposed to the front of the dwellings will also soften the visual amenity of the garages and driveways when viewed from the street and the surrounding areas. 

 

There will be a net loss of one on street car space this will have minimal impacts and any loss of on street car space is compensated by the provision off street carspaces on the site.

Inadequate plans

Notification plans are inadequate to determine the amenity impacts.

The notification plans provided meet the notification requirements set out by Council.  Detailed plans are available for viewing at the Council Administration Centre.

Key Issues

 

Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013

C1 Table:  Low Density Residential

Sub-section 2.1 - Minimum Lot Size and Frontage

The minimum frontage width for allotments resulting from the subdivision of land within Zone R2 (Low Density Residential) for the purposes of dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings is 12m. The subdivision proposed for Lot 11A & 11b have a frontage width of only 7.62m falling well short of the 12m frontage control for each allotment. 

 

Given the numerical shortfall an assessment is therefore required against the following objectives for minimum lot size and frontage controls under Section 2.1 of the DCP:

·      To ensure land subdivision respects the predominant subdivision and development pattern of the locality.

·      To ensure land subdivision creates allotments that have adequate width and configuration, to deliver suitable building design and to maintain the amenity of the neighbouring properties.

 

Minimum frontages frontage are an important part of maintaining the subdivision pattern and frontage is also a key determinant of the streetscape and character of an area.

 

An issues paper was prepared for dual occupancy and subdivision review within the City of Randwick in June 2005 which demonstrated the median frontage in Maroubra is approximately 11.5m and the median frontage of a Randwick City property is the 2A zone (which is now the R2 zone under the current LEP 2012) is approximately 12.5m.

 

The development delivers a suitable building design and subject to conditions maintains the amenity of the neightbouring properties.  However, there is insufficient information provided by the applicant for the broader locality to determine the predominant subdivision pattern and implications associated with the proposed smaller frontage widths.  For this reason the proposed subdivision is not supported and is to be deleted from this application.

 

Sub-section 3.2 - Building height

The maximum external wall height control for a development on a sloping site is 8m.  The subject site has a fall of approximately 8m from the front eastern corner to the rear southern corner of the site and 7m from the front northern corner to the rear western corner of the site. 

 

The maximum external wall height from the base of the rock wall level RL 34.51 is 8.89m to the south eastern corner at the rear end of the dwelling as identified in figure 1 below, closest to grid C. (However, if the wall height is taken from the top of the rock wall level RL 35.16 the external wall height will be 8.24m).  The wall height to the centre of the building (between grid B) closest the side boundary on the south eastern elevation from an approximate RL 35.6 will result in a maximum external wall height of 8.9m from the natural ground level, which also varies from the 8m control for sloping sites.  Given the fall of the land it is very difficult to identify the exact external wall height maximum.  Refer to figure 2 below.

 

Figure 2: South Eastern Elevation

 

Notwithstanding the above variations, the proposal will satisfy the corresponding objectives and control requirements in that:

 

·          The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape and in the immediate locality. The proposed maximum wall height is commensurate with the maximum height of the existing building so that it will not appear as an overbearing or unreasonable increase in height over the existing development. The 3rd level steps down towards the rear and follows the contours of the site as a result, when viewed from the streetscape the proposed development reads as a 2 storey building and does not appear as a dominating element in the streetscape.

 

·          The building complies with the FSR and 9.5m maximum height of building control standards in the LEP 2015. Also, as demonstrated in figure 1 below the non-compliant sections are limited to the south eastern elevation particularly to the rear and centre sections of the site where the site steps down due to the significant fall of the land. The majority of the buildings wall height is below the 8m external wall height maximum.

 

·       The development provides greater side setbacks towards the rear section of the building on the uppermost level which generally compensates for any adverse impacts on neigbouring properties such as view sharing, overshadowing, access to natural light and ventilation.

 

·          The proposed development has a contemporary form with articulation provided along all elevations ensuring that the appearance of the walls from both street level and neighbouring properties is not obtrusive.

 

Given the above arguments, the design of the proposed development is considered to have minimised environmental impacts and is reasonable within regard to the context of the site.

 


 

Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

Solar access to proposed development:

       

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

 

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

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

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

 

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

 

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

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 15 Bond Street objecting to the proposed external wall height as it will result in additional overshadowing impacts to their north facing windows, rear yard and solar panels which were installed for the pool.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that the subject site will have reasonable solar access provided to their private open spaces.

 

The shadow diagrams also demonstrate that the proposed development will not prevent the adjoining properties from obtaining the required three (3) hours of sunlight to a significant part of their private open spaces between 8:00am and 4:00pm on 21 June nor will the development significantly impact on their existing solar collectors. The solar panels will receive direct sunlight between 11am to 4pm which complies with the minimum 3 hours solar access control requirement.

 

However, the shadow diagrams indicate that the proposed development will result in additional overshadowing to the north-west facing windows of the adjoining property at No. 15 Bond Street.  This is unavoidable and largely due to the orientation of the site where the front of the subject site is orientated north east and the rear is to the south west.  It is also noted that the property at no. 15 Bond Street is sited closer than the minimum side setback control which reduces the potential for sunlight access. 

 

The existing and proposed shadows on the north western façade of no.15 Bond Street are summarised as follows:

 

21 June

 

Shadows of existing and proposed development

Summary of impact

8AM

 

No. 15 façade is in shadow from its own structures (sun has not come around enough to the north-west).

9AM

 

No. 15 façade is in shadow from its own structures (sun has not come around enough to the north-west).

10AM

Existing shadows

 

Proposed shadows

 

No. 15 existing windows receive sunlight in both the existing or proposed development.

11AM

Existing shadows

 

Proposed shadows

 

No. 15 existing windows are partially in shadow in both the existing and proposed development.

12Noon

Existing shadows

 

Proposed shadows

No. 15 north-western façade northern most window receives some sunlight the remaining north-western windows are in shadow which is in the existing situation.  No. 15 north-western façade windows are shadowed in the proposed development.

4pm

 

The north west facing windows are already overshadowed by the existing development.

 

The four windows that will be impacted by the proposed development are within one living space. There is an additional window within this room that faces north east. Considering the above shadow analyses it is concluded that the additional shadows are not unreasonable given that two windows (one north-west and one north-east) within this living space receives the required 3 hours of solar access. 

 

In addition to the above, the proposed development meets the objectives for the FSR standard and complies with the maximum height of building standard under the LEP 2012.  The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site in the context of the surrounding residential area.  The proposed development also complies with the side and rear setback controls in the Randwick DCP 2013 and adequate separation is provided between the dwellings to allow daylight into these windows

 

Further, the impacts from the non-compliant wall height are no significant and a compliant external wall height will still result in similar overshadowing impacts to these windows.

 

Overall, it is not considered that the proposal will not have any unreasonable overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring dwellings and therefore, the objectives and controls of the DCP for solar access are satisfied.

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

Objective

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

 

Controls

i)      All habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings.

 

ii)     The windows to the living areas must be oriented away from the adjacent dwellings where possible. In this respect, they may be oriented to:

·       Front or rear of the allotment;

·       Side courtyard.

 

iii)    Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy.

 

Windows

It is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties. The window and door openings to the north eastern and south western elevations will predominately overlook the street and rear yards of the subject site, respectively. 

               

On the lower ground floor level to the north western and south eastern elevations screen planning are proposed to the side boundaries and the window openings are to bedrooms and a laundry which are considered to be low use rooms and are not expected to cause substantial privacy concerns.

 

On the ground floor level to the north western and south eastern elevations the kitchen windows are of obscure glazing and the remaining window openings are off set from adjoining window openings and will not result in any unacceptable privacy concerns.

 

On the first floor level to the north western and south eastern elevations the bathroom and ensuite windows are of obscure glazing and the window openings are to bedrooms which are considered to be low use rooms and are not expected to cause substantial privacy concerns. Also these windows are offset from neighbouring window openings.

 

Balconies

It is not expected that the proposed front balconies will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties as they are Juliet balconies and are restrictive in use, off bedrooms which are considered to be low use rooms and will predominantly overlook the front yards of the subject and neighbouring properties and street.  Retractable louvres are provided in front of the balconies which also minimise privacy impacts.

 

The elevated terraces and balconies on the ground and first floor will overlook the rear yards of the neighbouring properties.  The property to the north west of the subject site at no. 9 enjoy views of the ocean and Malabar headlands and have indicated that they prefer the balustrades to the terrace and balcony to dwelling 11A Bond Street to be of glazing to retain their south easterly views.  No objections are raised to this arrangement give the extensive views and it is expected that there would be some privacy loss to retain views. 

 

However, given that a submission has been received from the neighbouring dwelling at no. 15 Bond Street in relation to privacy concerns from the terrace and balcony, it is recommended that 1.6m high privacy screens be provided to the south eastern ends of the terrace and balcony at dwelling 11B Bond Street to minimize these concerns.  These screens will not restrict views.

 

Subject to the above conditions, the development will satisfy the objectives of the DCP control for Visual privacy.

 

Sub-section 5.6 - View sharing

Section 5.6 of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP Low Density Residential recognises that many dwellings within the Randwick City area enjoy views to the ocean, coastline, parks and distant CBD skyline, with some elements being recognized as prominent natural features, significant man made artefacts which carry scenic and iconic values.

 

The objectives of this section of the DCP seek to ensure that views from the public domain are protected and enhanced and that development is sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. 

 

This concept of view loss has been defined in the Land and Environment Court by Senior Commissioner Roseth in Tenacity v Warringah Council (2004).

 

The Commissioner in deciding whether or not view sharing was reasonable adopted a four step assessment as follows.

 

a)     The value of the subject view i.e. water views are more valued than land views with iconic view such as the Opera House of North Head being more valued than views without icons and whole views are more valuable than partial views.

 

b)     From what part of the property are views obtained, for example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult to maintain than views from front and rear boundaries, and in addition whether or not the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position is also relevant, with sitting views being more difficult to protect. The expectation to retain side and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

c)     Assess the extent of the impact from the property as a whole rather than just for the view affected, the impact on views from living areas are more significant than from bedrooms or service areas, then it is useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

 

d)     The reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact and compliance with planning controls, with a development which satisfies planning controls being considered more reasonable than one that does not. With a complying proposal the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact upon the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area. A number of submissions have been received from neighbouring properties in relation to view loss. Having regard to principles and controls above, the impact on view sharing of the neighboring properties at no.’s Unit’s 3 & 4/4, 5, 7 & 9 Bond Street have been investigated and are assessed as follows:

 

a)     The views are towards the Ocean and include partial views of the Maroubra beach and a major part of Malabar Headland. It is noted that the views to the beach are already partially obscured by existing buildings and vegetation on the surrounding properties. Directions ‘A’ to ‘B’, in Figure 3 below indicates the views are obtained in an easterly and southerly directions.

 

Figure 3: Site analysis plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

b)     Views across Units 3 & 4/4 Bond Street are obtained from the front of the properties whereas the views from 7 & 9 Bond Street are obtained from the rear of the properties. The existing views currently available to the neighbouring properties in question are described below:

 

Unit no.’s 3 & 4/4 Bond Street, Maroubra

The units are located to the north eastern side of Bond Street directly opposite the subject site on the first floor level.  This property is a two storey residential flat building and the units above on the first floor level obtain views across from the front of the property.

 

The views are obtained in a southerly and easterly direction above the roof top of the subject site and neighbouring properties across to the ocean and Malabar headlands.  The views are obtained in a siting and standing position.  The views directly to the east will not be impacted by the proposed development. The views will be mainly affected in a southerly direction.

 

The extent to which views are available depends on the viewing angle, where you are positioned in the room and the form, the viewing angel and the depth and width of window openings.

 

Image 1: View of the residential flat building at no. 4 Bond Street, Maroubra

 

Unit 3/4 Bond Street, Maroubra

 

First floor study room

Views are obtained across the front & side boundaries in a standing and sitting position.

 

Image 2: View from the side east facing corner study room window looking in an easterly direction.  The subject site is not visible from this window and is located to the south of this unit. The views of the ocean and Malabar headlands are retained.

 

Image 3: View from the front south facing corner study room window looking in a southerly direction towards the subject site shown in red. The views are of Malabar headlands over the rooftops of the subject and neighbouring sites.

 

First floor living room

Views are obtained across the front boundary in a standing and sitting position.

 

 

Image 4: View from the front living room window looking in a southerly direction towards the subject site which is shown in red. The views are of Malabar headlands over the rooftops of the subject and neighbouring sites.

Hallway entry

Image 5: View from the hallway entry window looking in a southerly direction towards the subject site which is shown in red. The views are of Malabar headlands over the rooftops of the subject and neighbouring sites.

 

Unit 4/4 Bond Street, Maroubra

First floor study room

Views are obtained across the front & side boundaries in a standing and sitting position.

 

Image 6: View from the front south facing corner study room window looking in a south easterly direction towards the subject site shown in red. The views are of Malabar headlands over the rooftops of the subject and neighbouring sites.

 

First floor living room

Views are obtained across the front & side boundaries in a standing and sitting position.

 

Image 7: View from the front living room window looking in a south easterly direction towards the subject site which is shown in red. The views are of Malabar headlands over the rooftops of the subject and neighbouring sites.

 

5, 7 & 9 Bond Street, Maroubra

These dwellings are located to the south western side of Bond Street directly adjoining the subject site.  The property at no. 5 Bond Street is a single storey dwelling and no.’s 7 & 9 are single storey split level duplex dwellings and are elevated at the rear by approximately a storey level.

 

The views are obtained across the rear boundary in a southerly and easterly direction above the roof top of the neighbouring properties across to the ocean and Malabar headlands. The views especially to the south are partially blocked by existing vegetation to the rear of the subject and adjoining properties.

 

The views are obtained in a siting and standing position. The views directly to the south will not be impacted by the proposed development. The views will be mainly affected in an easterly direction as identified in directions ‘B’ to ‘C’ in figure 3 above.

 

The extent to which views are available depends on the viewing angle, where you are positioned in the room and the form, the viewing angel and the depth and width of window openings.

 

5 Bond Street, Maroubra

Sunroom

Views are obtained across the rear & side boundaries in a standing and sitting position.

 

Image 7: View from the rear sunroom room corner window looking in a south easterly direction towards the subject site which is shown in red. The views are of the ocean and Malabar headlands over the rooftops of neighbouring sites.

 

7 Bond Street, Maroubra

Rear balcony off the living room

Views are obtained across the rear & side boundaries in a standing and sitting position.

 

Image 8: View from the rear balcony looking in a south easterly direction towards the subject site which is shown in red. The views are of the ocean and Malabar headlands over the rooftops of neighbouring sites. The views are partially obscured by vegetation.

 

9 Bond Street, Maroubra

Dining room

Views are obtained across the side boundary in a standing and sitting position.

 

 

Image 9: View from the side dining room window looking in a south easterly direction towards the subject site which is shown in red. The views are of the ocean and Malabar headlands over the rooftops of neighbouring sites.  The views are partially obscured by vegetation. 

 

Living room

 

Views are obtained across the side boundary in a standing and sitting position.

 

   

Image 10: View from the side and rear of the living room window looking in a south easterly direction towards the subject site which is shown in red. The views are of the ocean and Malabar headlands over the rooftops of neighbouring sites.  The views are partially obscured by vegetation. 

 

Rear balcony off the living room

Views are obtained across the rear & side boundaries in a standing and sitting position.

 

Image 11: View from the rear balcony looking in a south easterly direction towards the subject site which is shown in red. The views are of the ocean and Malabar headlands over the rooftops of neighbouring sites.  The views are partially obscured by vegetation. 

 

 

c)  The extent of the impact from the adjoining properties are assessed below:

 

Unit 3/4 Bond Street, Maroubra

Location

Extent of impact

First floor study room

The views from the side east facing corner study room window looking in an easterly direction is extensive and will not be impacted by the proposed development as demonstrated in image 2 above.  However, majority of the headland views facing south over the roof top of the subject site as demonstrated in image 3 above will be lost.  Only a very small amount of viewing corridor between buildings will be retained.  The impact is considered to be minor given the views to the east will not be impacted.

First floor living room

The proposal will affect majority of the Malabar headland views facing south over the roof top of the subject site as demonstrated in image 4 above.  Only a very small amount of viewing corridor between buildings will be retained. The degree of the impact is considered to be minor to moderate.

 

The views in an easterly direction will not be impacted by the proposed development as demonstrated in image 12 below.  Whilst the views are not direct opposite the site and are obtained at an angle the views in this direction are considered to be more valuable and extensive.

 

Image 12: View taken directly standing next to the living room window sill looking in a south easterly direction towards the subject site shown in red and adjoining sites, Malabar headlands and ocean.   

Hallway entry

The dress of view loss will be similar to

 

Unit 4/4 Bond Street, Maroubra

First floor study room

The proposal will affect majority of the Malabar headland views facing south east over the roof top of the subject site as demonstrated in image 6 above.  Only a very small amount of viewing corridor between buildings will be retained. The degree of the impact is considered to be minor to moderate.

 

The views in an easterly direction will not be impacted by the proposed development.  Whilst the views are not direct opposite the site and are obtained at an angle the views in this direction are considered to be more valuable and extensive.

 

First floor living room

The degree of view impacts will be similar to unit 3/4 Bond Street.  Image 7 demonstrates the extent of impact.

5 Bond Street, Maroubra

Sunroom

As demonstrated in Image 8 above majority of the views will be retained.  Only a small section of the ocean view will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

7 Bond Street, Maroubra

Rear balcony off the living room

 

As demonstrated in Image 9 above majority of the views will be retained. Part of this view is hindered by the neighbouring privacy screen and only a very small section of the ocean view will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

9 Bond Street, Maroubra

Dining room

A significant portion of the side views of Malabar headlands and ocean view will be impacted by the proposed development.  The views directly to the rear of Malabar head lands will be retained. Majority of the views from this window will be impacted by the proposed development. 

 

Living room

 

A significant portion of the corner side views of Malabar headlands and ocean view will be impacted by the proposed development.  Depending where positioned in the room a significant portion of the views directly to the rear as demonstrated in image 10 will be retained.

 

Rear balcony off the living room

 

As demonstrated in Image 11 above Malabar head lands will not be impacted by the proposed development.  A moderate to significant portion of ocean view will be impacted depending where positioned on the deck.  If positioned centrally on the deck the ocean view impacted will be moderate.

 

d)  As part of the assessment process, Council requested that height poles be erected on the subject site to evaluate the proposed impact of the development within the context of the site. These height poles were erected by the applicant and their location verified by a registered surveyor. Following site inspections by Council and with benefits of the height pole, it has been concluded that the properties mainly affected by the proposed development are Units 3 & 4/4 Bond Street and 9 Bond Street.

 

The impacts at units 3 & 4 Bond Street are unavoidable and are not a result of a poorly designed development.  Any two storey development will result in similar view impacts.  With the exception of the external wall height the proposal is fully compliant and satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the LEP 2012 and DCP 2013.  Therefore, it cannot be argued that the non-complaints results in view loss as the wall height within the area where the view is being lost complies with the DCP control. The external wall height is discussed above in the key issues section.

 

In relation to the trees proposed at the front of the building to the side boundary edges a condition is included which requires these trees to be replace with plant species that attains a maximum height of 2m at maturity to allow for reasonable view sharing corridor in-between the properties.

 

The impacts at no.’s 5 & 7 Bond Street are considered minor and do not warrant design modifications. However, in relation to the view loss impacts at no. 9 it is noted that the impacts from the living and dining areas are severe and minor modifications to the design could reduce the severity of the impacts.  It is therefore, recommended that the upper most level to dwelling no. 11A Bond Street to the south western corner be reduced in depth by increase the rear setback by 1.5m to the parents retreat and a flat roof design is to be adopted to the level below.  The rear balconies to dwelling no. 11A Bond Street is to be reduced to have a maximum depth of 2m and for dwelling no. 11B Bond Street to have a maximum depth of 1.5m.   The balustrade to the north western side of the first floor balcony is to be of clear glazing to not obstruct views. The applicant has provided a sketch plan detailing the above recommendations and a condition is included making reference to be in accordance with this sketch plan as detailed below in image 13.

 

 

          Image 13: Sketch plan of the first floor level

 

Whilst the amended development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties by lowering the height of the development further design modifications as recommended above will provide a better view sharing outcome.

 

Provided the above design considerations are implemented the proposed development is acceptable and the resultant view loss impacts will satisfy the view sharing controls in the DCP.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is located within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. Subject to recommended conditions relating to view sharing the relevant controls and objectives within Randwick DCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts have been assessed as being acceptable. The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality within the foreshore area.

 

The subdivision is not supported as there is insufficient information provided by the applicant to determine the predominant subdivision pattern and implications associated with the non-compliant frontage width.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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/535/2015 for demolition of existing structures, construction of part 2/part 3 storey dual occupancy development, garages to front, swimming pools to rear, landscaping and associated works at No. 11 Bond Street, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

a.      The proposed subdivision shall be deleted from the proposed development and does not form part of this development consent.

 

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

 

c.     The first floor level shall be amended in accordance with the sketch received by Council on 11th November 2015 by Architects Ink. Details shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessments for approval prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

d.     The balustrade to the north western side of the first floor balcony of dwelling 11A shall be of clear glazing to not obstruct views.

 

e.     To allow for reasonable view sharing corridor in-between the properties, the large trees at the front of the property (4 x Tristaniopis laurina ‘Luscious’) shall be replaced with plant species that attains a maximum height of 2m at maturity.

 

f.      The front entry doors to dwellings 11A & 11B Bond Street shall be recessed a maximum of 2m from the front elevation of the garages.

 

g.     The allocated plant and equipment area within the basement shall be limited to the rear south western end of the passage access stairs.  The areas beyond the stair accesses shall be backfilled with soil.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 11 Bond Street, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D86/15

 

Subject:                  512 Bunnerong Road, Matraville (DA/335/2015)

Folder No:               DA/335/2015

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of the existing commercial building and construction of a new part 4 part 5 mixed use shop top housing development comprising of 2 retail lots, 13 residential units and rear ground floor level carpark for 14 vehicles (variation to building height control).

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Archi Spectrum

Owner:                    George Vlahauis

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview33936.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

L.ocality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the proposed development is valued very close to $2 million. 

 

1.       Proposal

 

It is proposed to demolish the existing two storey commercial building and construction of a new part 4 part 5 storey mixed use shop-top housing development comprising of 2 retail lots, 13 residential units and rear ground floor level carpark for 14 vehicles. 

 

The following table is a breakup of the proposed development:

 

Level

Bunnerong Road (Main) frontage

Baird Lane (rear) frontage

Ground

2 x commercial/retail lot – being 29m² and 30m²

Foyer

Lift

Residential was room

Retail waste room Electrical room

Storage area

 

Vechicle access to the rear ground lfoor carpark, comprising 12 car spaces within a car stacker arrangement and an additional 2 disabled spaces

1st

1 x 1 bedroom

1 x 2 bedroom

 

2 x studio

2nd

1 x 1 bedroom + study

1 x 2 bedroom

 

2 x studio

3rd

1 x 1 bedroom + study

1 x 2 bedroom

 

1 x studio

4th

1 x 2 bedroom

1 x studio

 

-

TOTAL

2 x commercial/retail lot being 29m² and 30m²

6 x studio

1 x 1 bedroom

2 x 1 bedroom + study

4 x 2 bedroom

 

Total of 13 units and 2 retail lots

 

Amended plans have been received by Council on two occasions to address a number of concerns raised by Council and the DRP meeting.  On the first occasion the following changes were made:

 

·          Neighbouring buildings adjusted to reflect additional survey info

·          Reconfiguration of the central courtyard

·          Combined the 2 proposed retail shops into a single shop

·          Slight modification to staircase of east building to accommodate access requirements

·          Reduction of extend of southern corner of eastern building to closer line up with the neighbouring building.

·          Roof shape redesigned.

·          Rear building staircase made a bit larger and more open

·          Privacy measures added to courtyard facing windows

·          Elevations  implied aesthetically

·          Roof terrace on L3 of rear building increased in size (Apartment 11) from 15.6m² to 56.35m².

·          Carpark ventilation louvers added.

 

On the second occasion the following changes were made:

 

·          Garbage exhaust riser details have been incorporated into the drawings including section through riser.

·          1:50 detailed sections through each facade have been provided.

·          Obscure glazing added to front and rear elevations.

·          Roof has been modified to extend towards the main street and the rear lane to provide better whether protection + nib walls added to each side of balcony.

·          Roof height reduced by 200mm.

 

Note: The amended plans were not re-notified as the changes made subject to conditions were not considered to result in any additional amenity impacts on the adjoining properties or streetscape. 

 

The assessment is based on the amended plans received by Council on 17 November 2015.

 

2.       The subject site and surrounding area

 

The subject property legally described as Lot 7 on DP236131 and known as 512 Bunnerong Road, Matraville. The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned B2 - Local Centre. The maximum height of a building in the Matraville Commercial Centre with a street frontage greater than 7 metres but less than 12 metres is restricted to 16 metres.

 

The subject site has a frontage of 11.5m, a depth of 41.5m and a total site area of 477m².  The site also has a secondary frontage of 11.47 metres to Baird Lane, whereby vehicle access to the site is obtained. The site falls from east to west by approximately 1.7m and a cross fall north/south of 0.5m.

 

The subject site is currently contains a 2 storey commercial building, with the ground floor operating as “Snorkel Safari” whilst the upper level is used as a dance/Zumba studio.

 

The subject site is within the Matraville Commercial Centre and is surrounded by a mixture of residential and retail/commercial activities. 

 

The northern neighbour at no. 508-510 Bunnerong Road comprises a mixed use, shop-top housing development with 2 commercial lots located at the ground level and 3 levels of residential dwelling units with a recessed 4th level located above the ground floor commercial area.  A roof top terrace is also located at the top of this development.

 

The eastern neighbouring property on the opposite side of Bunnerong Road forms ‘The Peninsula’ development which comprises of a commercial shopping centre at the ground floor including a Woolworths and 5-6 levels of residential dwelling units above.

 

To the south of the subject site is an older style mixed use, shop-top housing development comprising of retail/commercial activity on the ground floor and parts of the first floor level and 2-3 levels of residential dwelling units above.

 

To the west of the subject site are a number of 4 storey residential flat buildings.  Directly opposite the subject site on the western side of Baird Lane is a number of undercover and open car parking spaces.

 

3.     Request to vary development standards in Randwick LEP 2012

 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

Clause 4.3A - Exceptions to height of buildings in Matraville and Kensington

The proposal contravenes the development standard for the maximum height of buildings contained in clause 4.3A(2)(a) of RLEP 2012 which reads as follows:

 

2)  The maximum height of a building in the Matraville Commercial Centre on land identified as “Area 1” on the Height of Buildings Map, and where all of the building that is higher than 16 metres is set back at least 4 metres from the street frontage, is:

(a)  if the land has a street frontage greater than 7 metres but less than 12 metres —16 metres,

 

In accordance with Clause 4.3A, sub section (2)(a), a 16 metre height limit applies to the land, as the land is identified as Area 1 on the RLEP 2012 map and has a street frontage of 11.5m.

 

The most recent amendments made to the roof profile of the development will result in a maximum building height of 16.5m and the front of the building edge is setback 3.44m to the southern end of the building and 3m from the northern end of the building.  Refer to image 1 below which demonstrates the extent of the variation.

 

Accordingly, this gives rise to a variation of 500mm to the building height and a variation to the front building setback of 0.56m to 1m to the front street edge which requires the building to be setback at least 4m for building higher than 16m.

 

Image 1: Proposed section demonstrating extent of height non-compliance

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

16m

Proposed Building height

16.5m

Excess above RLEP Standard

3.125% (or 500mm)

 

Front building setback for buildings over 16m

Development Standard

4m

Proposed

3.44m to the southern end of the building; and

3m from the northern end of the building.

Excess above RLEP Standard

Northern end 16.3% (or 0.56m)

Southern end 25% (or 1m)

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Applicant’s submission

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

 

RANDWICK LEP 2012 - CLAUSE 4.6 EXCEPTION TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

This amended Clause 4.6 submission has been prepared to accompany the amended Statement of Environmental Effects submitted to Randwick Council by ABC Planning Pty Ltd for the demolition of the existing commercial building and the erection of a mixed use shop top housing development, comprising 1 commercial spaces at the ground floor level with part 3 and part 5 storey residential above and rear ground floor parking for 14 car spaces.

 

The proposal seeks a variation to the development standard contained within Clause 4.3A, sub section (2)(a), of the Randwick LEP 2012 – maximum height of 16m as, as the land is identified as Area 1 on the RLEP 2012 map and has a street frontage of 11.5m.

 

Figure 1: Height Map

 

The proposed development generally complies with the 16m height limit with a minor breach of 3.125% associated with the roof form of the eastern building. The proposed variation, being 3.125% or 0.5m is a result of the increased floor to floor levels and proposed roof form, which form part of the amended proposal. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed height provides for a better transition between the neighbouring buildings to the north and south and the height breach will be indiscernible from the surrounding streetscape.

 

The following justifies the height variation.

 

1. Consistency with the objectives of the height standard in the LEP

 

The following assessment addresses each of the relevant criteria under Clause 4.6:

 

 

Clause 4.6 Height:

1. The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

Clause 4.3A Exceptions to height of buildings in Matraville and Kensington

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

a.  to provide for building heights that establish the appropriate height for street frontages, buildings or groups of buildings,

b.  to achieve well-proportioned buildings with articulated design and massing,

c.   to achieve a transition between higher buildings in town centres and the height of buildings behind the centres on local streets,

d.  to ensure that development can occur on a variety of lot sizes, to achieve design excellence.

 

(2) The maximum height of a building in the Matraville Commercial Centre on land identified as “Area 1” on the Height of Buildings Map, and where all of the building that is higher than 16 metres is set back at least 4 metres from the street frontage, is:

a.  if the land has a street frontage greater than 7 metres but less than 12 metres— 16 metres

 

Assessment: In accordance with Clause 4.3A, sub section (2)(a), a 16 metre height limit applies to the land, as the land is identified as Area 1 on the RLEP 2012 map and has a street frontage of 11.5m.

 

The proposed development generally complies with the 16m height limit, protruding to a maximum of 16.5m within the eastern/Bunnerong Road frontage building. It is noted that the DCP height in storeys and building envelope controls have been strictly adhered to within the proposed design however as the subject land declines by 1.5m from the east to the west, this results in the building slightly breaching the 16m maximum height plane. The amended proposal has further exacerbated the breach by an additional 0.3m which is a result of the amended floor to floor heights and the redesigned roof form, which is considered to be more characteristic of the roof forms of the buildings to the north and south. Nonetheless, the proposed development achieves the objectives of this clause in that the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality, provides for an appropriate transition between the adjoining land uses to the north and south and is well-proportioned and articulated to avoid massing and visual bulk.

 

Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed design does not result in any unreasonable amenity, privacy or overshadowing impacts upon neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed development is considered to be a benefit to the area given that it facilitates the provision of additional residential accommodation in a well-established, local centre that is highly accessible by public transportation.

 

2. Consistency with the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone

 

 

Objectives of zone

·      To provide a range of retail, business, entertainment and community uses that serve the needs of people who live in, work in and visit the local area.

·      To encourage employment opportunities in accessible locations.

·      To maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking and cycling.

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

·      To facilitate a high standard of urban design and pedestrian amenity that contributes to achieving a sense of place for the local community.

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

·      To facilitate a safe public domain.

 

Assessment: The proposed shop top housing development is permissible in the B2 Local Centre zone and is consistent with the desired future character for the Matraville Town Centre. Furthermore, it is considered that the provision of additional retail space (1) and 13 apartments in a location that is close to frequent public transport routes, shops, educational establishments and local services, achieves the objectives of the zone.

 

On this basis, the proposed development complies with the zone objectives.

 

3. Consistency with State and Regional planning policies

 

Assessment: The proposed height variation allows for the orderly and economic use of land as envisaged by the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. Furthermore, the minor breach in the height limit, being 3.125% or 0.5m, is associated with the eastern building only, with the maximum height breach occurring in the western portion of the Bunnerong Road building, in association with the sloping nature of the land. It is considered that the minor height breach provides for an appropriate transition between the northern neighbouring building and that to the south and is consistent with that envisaged by Council for the area.

The proposed height allows for achievement of the building density in accordance with the Matraville Town Centre DCP provisions, without creating a development with an overbearing bulk and scale. The recessed nature of the upper levels represents a high quality design that achieves adequate levels of articulation that has been designed to be sympathetic and complementing to the neighbouring residential buildings.

 

Whilst the height breach is only very minor and not responsible for any greater densities, it is considered that the proposed development in its current form is consistent with the State Policy for Urban Consolidation and the provision of higher densities and heights adjacent to or along frequent public transport corridors (i.e. Bunnerong Road).

 

4. The variation allows for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment: The proposal provides for a better planning outcome as it increases the provision of residential housing and retail shop fronts in those locations close to educational establishments, employment opportunities, public transport and community services and facilities.

 

The proposal performs well against the SEPP 65 principles and those contained within Council’s DCP, providing for a high level of internal and external amenity with limited adverse environmental impacts.

 

It is reiterated that the additional 0.5m height breach is barely perceptible from the surrounding streetscapes and is only subject to the Bunnerong Road building. It is considered that the additional recessed level associated with this built form, provides for greater consistency with those residential flat buildings to the north and south of the subject site.

 

The departure from the maximum height will not result in any significant adverse amenity impacts such as overshadowing, privacy impacts or any significant view loss and is considered to be consistent with the height of those neighbouring mixed use buildings to the north.

 

It is considered that variation to the height limit will not compromise the intent of the standard or the planning intent for the site and the area.

 

5. There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

Assessment: The lack of amenity impacts to surrounding properties as demonstrated above, particularly in relation to privacy and visual amenity further displays the suitability of the proposed height variation in this instance. The provision of additional housing and retail / commercial lots in an accessible area, located within close proximity to employment opportunities and educational establishments, which is supported by regular bus services and in an area with higher densities, which fosters active modes of transport such as walking and cycling, is considered to be sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation.

 

6. The variation is in the public interest

 

Assessment: It is considered that the combination of the above factors suitably demonstrates that the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances of this site. The appropriate streetscape outcomes associated with the height variation combined with the provision of additional housing and commercial lots, demonstrates that the proposal is a better form of development than what currently exists on the subject site and therefore the variation is considered to be in the public interest.

 

Conclusion

For reasons mentioned herein, this Clause 4.6 variation is forwarded to Council in support of the development proposal at 512 Bunnerong Road, Matraville and is requested to be looked upon favourably by Council.

 

Planner’s Assessment Summary

In summary, it is considered that strict compliance with the maximum height of building standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed increase in the building height is relatively minor (i.e. only 500mm) and is considered to be consistent with the height of those neighbouring mixed use buildings to the north of the site. Therefore, the non-compliant section of the building height will not be significantly noticeable from the northern end of the building and is only primarily noticeable from the southern end and the Bunnerong Road street frontage.  Refer to image 2 below.

 

Image 2: Photomontage of street view with the proposed new development and existing adjoining development on Bunnerong Road

 

·       The building has a shorter depth at the southern elevation to generally align with the neighbouring building at no. 514-516 Bunnerong Road which reduces the amenity impacts and the visual perceived bulk along this boundary.  This also allows for greater solar assess.  Refer to image 3 below.

 

Image 3: Southern elevation indicating the extent of building envelope on the subject and neighbouring site at no. 514-516 Bunnerong Road.

 

·       It was requested at the DRP to eliminate the stepping at the front southern corner of the top floor as it will improve and simplify the building and respond more appropriately to the neighbouring buildings.  The amended plans have eliminated this stepping and have provided a front setback which is consistent with the neighbouring buildings to the north and south of the subject site. 

 

·       The achievement embodied in the amended plans is consistent with the built form of the neighbouring development and the internal courtyard achieves a separation between front and rear buildings of at least 12m for the bulk of the interface. Refer to images 3 & 4.

 

 

 

Image 4: Northern elevation indicating the extent of building envelope on the subject and neighbouring site at no. 508-510 Bunnerong Road.

 

·       The non-compliant portion of the building height does not manifest in any adverse environmental impact in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, view loss or privacy impacts to adjoining and neighbouring land on the basis that:

 

-    The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape and in the immediate locality.  The proposed building envelope is generally similar with the setback and separation of adjoining buildings to provide reasonable amenity between neighbouring properties.  The street setback is consistent with the established front building line of the north and south neighbouing buildings and will contribute to the public domain by defining streetscape character and the continuity of street facades.

 

-    The amended roof profiles to Buildings A & B are more recessive and provide better whether protection to the upper most front facing balconies on Bunnerong Road and Baird Lane.

 

-    The additional shadows to the courtyard areas of the neighbouring properties due to the non-compliance portion of the building are very minor and the bulk of the additional overshadowing from the development would be largely due to the east west orientation of the site. Minimise overshadowing the building generally responds directly to the position and dimensions of the neighbouring party walls as shown on the survey and generally matching the neighbours on all levels as recommended by the DRP.

 

-    The proposal does not result in any view loss to adjoining properties.

 

-    The proposal includes east and west facing balconies to Block A which faces Bunnerong Road and is the building in question.  The predominant view from these balconies is to the east and overlooking Bunnerong Road not to adjoining residential development to the north and south.  The proposed balconies west of this building are located off bedrooms, not living areas and it is unlikely that future residents will spend considerable time in this area.  Also, privacy louvres have been installed to the lower half of these windows. The proposal has acceptable privacy impacts and will improve casual surveillance of Bunnerong Road. 

 

·       The proposed development remains consistent with the existing and future character of the area.

 

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

 

·       The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Unit 8/514 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

 

Concerns

Comments

Isolated Site

 

Does not believe the site is isolated as stated in the SEE and this should not be used to justify variations from the RLEP 2012 and DCP 2013 controls.

 

The neigbhouring properties have been already developed which limits the development potential for site amalgamating with the neighbouring properties and in effect renders it as an isolated site between two already developed sites.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the development has been assessed against the provisions of Clauses 4.6(3) and (4) of the RLEP 2012 and it was found that the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the height of building standard satisfied these provisions.   Refer to Key Issues below under request to vary development standards in Randwick LEP 2012.

 

Solar access

 

The proposed development does not meet solar access to 70% of the apartments and falls 9% short of the standard target.

 

The applicable measurement for solar access should be 3hours rather than 2 hours as adopted.

 

The height of the development will impeach solar access and overshadow their apartment in the afternoon.

 

Overshadowing is excessive and does not comply with the DCP.

Refer to Key Issues below under Sub-section 7.1 - Natural Daylight, Overshadowing and Solar Access.

 

 

Bulk and scale

 

The proposed development is over the maximum height limit under the LEP 2012.  The fifth level is inconsistent with the DCP 2013 which states that buildings must be four storeys to the street alignment for frontage widths between 7-12m.

 

Refer to Key Issues below under request to vary height of building development standards in Randwick LEP 2012, which demonstrates that the proposed development is consistent with the bulk and scale of the neighbouring buildings to the north and south of the site; and is consistent with the intensions of the building envelope controls in the DCP 2013.

Privacy

 

The levels of the building does not align with the existing building to the south, as a result of the above and no privacy screening to this end of the balconies on the fourth and fifth levels will overlook onto the existing private open space of the adjoining dwelling units.

 

The development has been amended so that the levels of the building generally align with the north and south facing buildings.

 

However, to ensure reasonable privacy measures are maintained between the dwelling units a condition is recommended requiring the balustrading to the southern end of balconies on the fourth and fifth levels to be of solid form to eliminate overlooking in a downward direction.

 

The physical separation between the proposed development and the developments on surrounding properties is consistent with the performance criteria in the DCP and should ensure adequate mutual levels of visual and acoustic privacy.

 

Parking

The development does not provide adequate parking and is short 2 car spaces as required under the DCP 2013.  This will have an adverse effect on the available public parking spaces for the commercial aspect of Matraville.

 

Does not believe the stacker system is suitable.

The proposed development has been assessed by Council’s Development Engineer and the non-compliant aspect of the development was considered to be acceptable.  Refer to Development Engineering comments below.

 

 

5.       Key Issues

 

5.2       SEPP 65 – Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) in accordance with the provisions of the SEPP both as a pre DA and a formal Development Application.

 

The following comments from the DRP consideration of the matter in 15th June 2015 are provided below (followed by Council’s comments wherever necessary):

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This is the first DA review and the second time the Panel has reviewed a proposal for this site. The proposal is for the demolition of an existing 2 storey retail and commercial space and the construction of 2 retail spaces, 3-5 storeys of residential and basement parking for 14 vehicles.  At Pre-DA two options were provided for the residential component, the first for a mix of units, the second for studio units throughout.  The Panel expressed a preference, for a number of reasons, the mixed unit proposal.  The applicant has developed this scheme and now submitted a DA.

 

Generally the Panel advises the applicant to seek BCA and Access advice as well as preliminary structural and mechanical advice as these inputs have the potential to change the scheme significantly.

 

The site has a frontage to Baird Lane, which is at a lower level to Bunnerong Road and from which an entrance to the parking levels is provided.

 

The Panel is familiar with the site and the wider area.

 

1.     Relationship to the Context of the Proposal

 

The area around the proposed building is currently undergoing change to reflect the DCP and the proposal will sit within this new context satisfactorily. Nonetheless inadequate contextual information has been provided.

 

With regard to the building envelope a small footpath has been created to Baird Lane which is commendable. This setback should be 1 metre wide and dedicated to Council.

 

The building should also respond more directly to the position and dimensions of the neighbouring party walls as shown on the survey (a more detailed survey is required) and generally matching the neighbours on all levels. The overly stepped top floors are not necessary and the elevations could be improved (simplified) if the stepping was eliminated. Floor space can be redistributed to southern areas on the upper levels.

 

The retail frontage would be more flexible in the long term if it were one larger space which could be subdivided, rather than two small spaces that can never be amalgamated.  A new stair and lift position will most probably need to be considered once BCA advice is received and the response should incorporate better retail area and more continuous frontage.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The development provides for construction of a concrete footpath within a 1m setback at ground level along the laneway frontage which will eventually align with other developments as sites are redeveloped.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have noted that a strip of land (approximately 0.7m) will be required to be dedicated to Council along the full Baird Lane frontage to facilitate construction of a 1.3m wide pedestrian footpath.  The proposed 1st & 2nd floor balconies fronting Baird Lane will encroach onto the road reserve by approximately 0.2m.  This is not supported by Council’s Development Engineers and as such a condition is recommended requiring the balconies to be reduced by 200mm to meet this requirement. 

 

The development has been amended to generally align with the neighbours party walls minimising the visibility of blank walls within the court yard area.  The step to the southern side of the building at the upper most level fronting Bunnerong Road has been eliminated and a more simplified roof design has been adopted.

 

A large single retail space with a continuous frontage is provided which allows for flexibility to subdivide into two small spaces if necessary.

 

2.     The Scale of the Proposal

The scale is appropriate if the stepping can be reduced and the inner courtyard made to align more directly with the neighbouring courtyards to the north and south.

 

The ceiling height for the retail is good and this has been carried through to the car parking area where car stackers are proposed.  Although this is a reasonable use of the space the acceptance of shared stacking needs to be considered and confirmed with Council engineers.  More soil depth for the podium planting needs to also be incorporated over the aisle area – 600mm minimum soil depth is required.  Planters that are set down and level with the courtyard will make the space more generous and less cluttered.

 

The scale and proportions indicated on the elevations will need to be adjusted in response to this critique.  A reduction in the number of elements and planes would be welcome.

 

Currently the scheme falls well short of SEPP 65 and RFDC requirements.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The development has been amended reducing the stepping and is now generally align more directly with the neighbouring courtyards to the north and south.

 

Council’s Development Engineers have confirmed subject to conditions the car parking area is acceptable. Refer to detailed comments made by Development Engineers.

 

The courtyard has been redesign to providing more soil depth for the podium planting and is also incorporated over the aisle area.  The planters within the court yard area have been set down.

 

The building elevations have been redesigned to be more proportioned and in scale with the neighbouring buildings; and a simplified and recessive roof form has been adopted.

 

3.     The Built Form of the Proposal

 

Generally the proposed form of two buildings separated by a courtyard is logical and consistent with the DCP.  The Panel make the following comments:

 

-     The step back at upper levels to the south is unnecessary and causes the elevation to be clumsy. As set out above, aligning the courtyard would be better than setting back the facades.

-     100% cross ventilated apartments have been provided which is commendable however the lobby areas should also receive natural light and ventilation via a new slot from the courtyard.  The upper floor lobby can be lit from clerestory windows to optimise top floor unit areas.

-     Area for carpark exhaust, retails exhausts (possibly restaurants in the future) and garbage room vent risers need to be provided.

-     The car park should receive light and ventilation from the lane frontage.

-     The roof, materials and form of the building should be simplified – currently there is a lack of logic in the design

-     The courtyard ramps are a very poor design, they take up space, appear to be non-compliant and create visual clutter - a better solution to access needs to be sought.

-     Window operation should be shown on the elevations and appropriate sunshading and weather protection provided – currently the west-facing elevation to the courtyard is a muddle of unrelated elements, and has insufficient weather protection.

-     Access to the rear stair at courtyard level is cramped, and the stair would be better open air rather than hot and airless with fixed glazing

-     The drawings need to be resolved to DA level e.g. the section provided is not complete and the elevations and 3Ds are not coordinated with the plans

-     No exhaust risers from either the car park, garbage area or for the retail areas have been shown – these could take up considerable space, and affect the roof-scape, and need to be accurately shown

-     Simplified roofs, and therefore downpipes, should be considered. Downpipes should be shown on the elevations.

 

Currently the scheme falls well short of SEPP 65 and RFDC requirements.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The setback to the upper level to the southern side has been redesigned removing the step to the south to create a straighter edge to the side and front elevations. 

 

The building elevations have been redesigned to now generally align more directly with the neighbouring courtyards to the north and south.

 

The front lobby area is made larger and roof skylight has been introduced on the top level to improve light and ventilation to the lobby areas.  The applicant has argued it not feasible to provide lighting and ventilation slot from the courtyard due to the narrow site width as it will reduce the amenity of the apartments and only lobbies on the 2nd and 3rd levels do not achieve light and ventilation. 

 

Bedrooms 1 to apartments 6 & 10 on the 2nd and 3rd floor levels to Building ‘A’ are relatively large in size for a 1 bedroom apartment and therefore, there is opportunity to reduce these bedroom sizes to align with built form of apartment 1 (on the first floor level) by creating a recessed slot within the building to allow for natural light and ventilation into these lobby areas.

 

Ventilation and lighting into the car parking area will occur via the open style louvres and open style security garage doors which facing the laneway, in conjunction with intake louvres located within the courtyard.

 

The garbage room riser is shown within the residential waste room.

 

No provision is made for retail exhaust riser.  The applicant has argued the space is too small and it is not likely that the future premises will require cooking facilities.  This is acceptable give the size of the retail space.

 

The ramp within the court yard area has been removed and a platform lift has been introduced.

 

Window operation and sun shading elements have been noted on the western elevation.

 

The rear stair access is increased in size and glass lourves are provided for better ventilation.

 

The roof design has been simplified by removing various building elements and introducing a single fall roof with overhangs to facilitate sunlight and weather protection.  Downpipes are included in the elevations.

 

4.        The Proposed Density

This is acceptable and consistent with the emerging form of the Matraville Centre.

 

5.        Resource and Energy Use and Water Efficiency

The proposal, if improved as suggested above, has a reasonable framework for passive environmental design.  In the development of the design the following should be provided:

 

-     solar and weather protection appropriate to orientation

-     ceiling fans in habitable rooms (dotted on plans for clarity)

-     suitable roof insulation.  Gravel roofs should have rigid foam insulation and pebble ballast.

-     light, ventilation and winter sun via the roof

-     rainwater retention to drip irrigate planters and water plants

-     window design to optimise ventilation options for the occupants without compromising security

-     clothes lines

-     increased day light and fresh air to the car park

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The amended plans show the following:

 

·      Louvres introduced to the courtyard facing windows. 

·      Ceiling fans noted on the plans.

·      Insulation to roof noted on the plans.

·      Rainwater irrigation is achieved via a suspended tank under courtyard slab.

·      All windows are operable without causing security risk.

·      Dryers are provided to the laundry and the dimensions of the balconies for each dwelling are capable of being use for clothes drying purposes and will not be prominent from the street.  

·      Louvres and open security grill garage are incorporated into the rear lane facing façade.

 

Council’s landscape officer has reviewed the landscape plans and has recommended that the recessed area along the northern side of the first floor courtyard be deleted and the raised planters to extend into this area to provide a more consistent planter width across this side of the courtyard and a more open plan area as recommended by the DRP.  It is recommended that the feature tree be located within this area and replaced with a species that attain a minimum height of 8m at maturity given the soil depth is not deep enough to cater for a tree height of 9-12m at maturity. 

 

6.       The Proposed Landscape

The landscape plan should consider:

-     Deeper soil available over the driveway aisle.

-     The “feature tree” should be species capable of growing to the height of 9-12 metres and should be placed in the centre between the buildings but more toward the north over the deeper soil area

-     A roof terrace over the front building? - discuss with Council

-     More useful courtyard space with the tree moving north - symmetry is not creating the best use of space

-     Removal of the ramp through better overall building design

-     Provision of more useful outdoor space off the podium level units

-     Provision of an automatic low flow sub-surface irrigation system to all planters - and clearly nominated on the detailed drawing and could run off a retention tank suspended below the courtyard.

 

Currently the scheme falls well short of SEPP 65 and RFDC requirements.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The amended plans show the following:

 

·      600mm high planter boxes provided within the courtyard

·      A feature tree is tree capable of obtaining a height of 9-12m at maturity is provided within the courtyard area.

·      The courtyard has been redesign to allow better use of the space.

·      The ramp has been removed and a platform lift is introduced.

·      Private outdoor courtyards are provided to the courtyard facing apartments.

·      Irrigation system is noted on the plans.

 

7.       The Amenity of the Proposal for its Users

The entry sequences need to be improved as noted above.  Natural light and ventilation to common circulation spaces needs to be provided. The dimensions of the lobbies and stairs appear to be inadequate and need to be checked.

 

Internalised study spaces without light and air are not supported by the Panel.  If an opening over the kitchen is proposed this should be clearly shown in a detailed section.

 

Privacy and shading for windows facing the courtyard should be considered and consistently applied.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

As discussed above, given the narrow site width the opportunity to increase size of the lobby areas is limited and will result in loss of amenity to the apartments.  However, the ground floor lobby is slightly increased in size and roof skylight is provided to the lobby of the northern building to improve daylight and ventilation. 

 

Southern building lobby achieves daylight and ventilation via the glazed wall facing the court yard.

 

The internalised studies have been deleted from the proposal.

 

Privacy louvres and shading devices are incorporated to the courtyard facing windows.

 

8.       The Safety and Security Characteristics of the Proposal

BCA and Access advice needs to be provided, and fully incorporated into the plans.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

A BCA report has been provided and is incorporated into the plans.

 

9.       Social issues

The opportunity to provide a more active frontage to the rear lane should be investigated.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

There is limited opportunity to provide an active frontage to the rear lane as the rear elevation at street level comprises of carparking across the full width of the site.  However, to alleviate the blank walls and create a more active frontage to the rear laneway louvres for ventilation and open security grills garage doors are provided to the frontage.

 

10.    The Aesthetics of the Proposal

The information provided regarding materials and finishes is scant, and would provide no certainty for a well-made building. The roof design makes little sense, and lacks any constructional reality.

 

See other comments above - currently the scheme falls well short of SEPP 65 and RFDC requirements.

 

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The building and roof form elements have been simplified to address the above concerns.

 

Summary and Recommendations

The Panel looks forward to reviewing this proposal again after the scheme has been improved and the issues raised have been fully addressed.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment:

The changes embodied in the amended drawings reasonably accommodate the recommendations made by the panel. On this basis there is no further need for the amendments to be referred back to the panel. The proposed development is considered to meet the aims and objectives of SEPP 65.

 

5.3     Randwick DCP 2013

C3. 3 Adaptable Housing

The DCP requires that a minimum of 20% of dwellings in new multi-unit housing and residential flat buildings containing 10 or more dwellings must be adaptable.

 

The proposed development includes a lift providing access to all levels of the main building facing Bunnerong Road and a condition of consent is included in the recommendation that the adaptable units to the requirements of a minimum Class C Certification under AS4299 Adaptable Housing be included in the construction certificate.

 

4.4     Part D5 - Matraville Town Centre

Sub-section 3.2 - Building Envelopes

The following Table 3 provides a summary of the controls for the section of Bunnerong Road including the subject site and where the frontage of development is in-between 7m to 12m wide:

 

 

Whilst the amended proposal is generally consistent with the requirements of the DCP there are a number of strict numerical departures which are addressed as follows:

 

Sub-section 3.2.2 - Heights:

The objectives of the DCP in regard to heights are as follows:

 

·      To ensure an appropriate relationship between new development, street width, and surrounding dwellings.

·      To achieve a consistent built street edge height.

·      To ensure appropriate floor to ceiling height within buildings.

·      To achieve a visual transition between the heights of buildings on Bunnerong Road and the heights of buildings ‘behind’ the main street.

 

The DCP includes the following diagram of intended height relationship between the provisions of the DCP and the RLEP:

 

 

The proposed development provides a 5th storey level fronting Bunnerong Road and a 4th storey level fronting Baird Lane. Image 2 to 4 above demonstrates the consistency with the DCP envelope in this regard.

 

In relation to the building fronting Bunnerong Road (Building A) it has been assessed above that the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the height of building standard is considered to be well founded and is supported in this instance due to its built envelope being consistent with the neighbouing building height and form and is consistent with the intentions and stated objectives.

 

In relation to the building fronting Baird Lane (Building B) the 4th storey level is limited in size and the built form is located to the northern side of the boundary to allow for greater solar access to the south facing building and is consistent with the intentions and stated objectives of the DCP as outlined above and is supported.

 

 

 

Floor to ceiling heights:

The DCP requires:

 

Ground/Storey 1 = 3.5m + 0.8m floor slab/ceiling space

Storey 2 to 5 = 2.7m + 0.2m floor slab/ceiling space

Maximum height to underside of topmost ceiling (up to storey 6): 15.7m

 

Proposed development:

Front building (fronting Bunnerong Road):

Ground/Storey 1 = 3.82m (320mm floor slab/ceiling space)

Storey 2 to 4 = 3m (300mm floor slab/ceiling space)

Storey 5 = 2.6m to the underside of ceiling

 

Maximum height to underside of topmost ceiling (is up to 5 storeys) = 16.23m

 

Rear building (Fronting Baird Lane):

Ground/Storey 1 = 4.4m (900mm floor slab/ceiling space)

Storey 2 & 3 = 3m (300mm floor slab/ceiling space)

Storey 4 = 2.6m to the underside of ceiling

 

Maximum height to underside of topmost ceiling (is up to 4 storeys) = 13.7m

 

Whilst all residential levels comply with the floor to floor heights stipulated under the DCP, the commercial floor level to Bunnerong Road provides for a 3.82m floor to ceiling height with a 320mm slab width. Such arrangement would allow for a realistic height to a false ceiling of a minimum of 3.2m and 620mm for services which is a workable arrangement. Therefore and notwithstanding the departure, the proposed floor to ceiling height is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The ceiling height of the commercial level will allow for a functional accommodation of services required in relation to the retail uses on site.

·      The built form of the proposed development complies with the intentions and objectives of the DCP.

·      The maximum height of the proposed development is consistent with the height of neighbouring building particularly the neighbouring building to the north which has been approved under DA/757/2008 with a building height of 19m height.

 

Sub-section 3.2.3 - Depth

The objectives of the DCP in this regard are:

 

·      To encourage dual aspect apartments.

·      To ensure residential apartments have good amenity for residents in terms of sun access and natural ventilation.

 

The DCP controls require:

 

i)      Development fronting Bunnerong Road, Beauchamp Road, Daunt Avenue, Baird Avenue, Perry Street and Franklin Street = Maximum 16m

 

Development fronting a lane and development at the rear of a lot = 8m

 

ii)     Within the maximum building envelope depths:

·      articulate the building facade, and

·      design apartments so that the maximum glass to glass dimension is 14 metres.

 

iii)    Balconies may extend outside the maximum building envelope depth by up to 600 mm, but may not extend beyond the property boundary.

 

The residential component of the building fronting Bunnerong Road (Block A) has an envelope depth of 17.325m to the northern end and 15.7m to the southern end of the building and the building at the rear fronting Baird Lane (Block B) has an envelope depth of 11.76m. 

 

The maximum glass to glass dimension varies from the maximum in some areas, for Block’s A & B.  Block A ranges from 15.325m to the northern end and 13.225m to the southern end. Block B the maximum glass to glass for levels 2 and 3 are 9m and for level 4 is 7.69m.

 

The departures are supported for the following reasons:

 

-    The sections of the building which exceed the 14m and 8m depth do not traverse more than a single unit and the overall built form is acceptably articulated.

 

-    Importantly the internal courtyard achieves a separation between front and rear pavilions of 12m for the bulk of the interface. The achievement embodied in the amended plans has also been supported by the DRP as an acceptable outcome.

 

-    The buildings are well articulated with balconies and a combination of finishes and materials.

 

-    The departure is consistent with building envelope requirements of the DCP and when considering the allowance for a 600mm extension for balcony encroachments the non-compliance is not as significant.

 

-    All of the units achieve a dual aspect which represents a good design outcome.

 

-    The internal amenity has been improved in the amended plans increasing the percentage of operable windows to the façades which will improve natural ventilation within the units.

 

-    The sunlight access achieved to units within the development is generally consistent with the requirements of the DCP.

 

The proposed development meets the intentions and objectives of the DCP.

 

Sub-section - 4.2 Awnings

The DCP details the following objectives in relation to Awnings:

 

·      To provide shelter and amenity for pedestrians on public streets.

·      To reinforce an existing coordinating feature of the town centre.

·      To provide continuity in the streetscape.

 

The controls require to:

 

i)      Provide continuous street frontage awnings to all new development. Generally awnings should be a minimum 3 metres deep.

ii)     Setback awnings a minimum of 600mm from the kerb.

iii)    Design new awnings to be complimentary with their neighbours, and aligned with the general alignment of existing awnings in the street.

iv)    Cantilever awnings from the buildings with a minimum soffit height of 3.5 metres.

v)     Provide under awning lighting to improve public safety.

vi)    Colonnades along the street edge are inappropriate in this context.

vii)   Signage on canvas blinds is inappropriate.

 

A continuous awning is provided along the Bunnerong Street frontage and has been designed to complement existing and likely future awning structures in this location. The awning is setback 500mm form the kerb with a soffit height of between 2.8m and 3.3m which departs from the strict height of 3.5m height stipulated under the DCP. Notwithstanding the strict numerical departure is supported for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed awning structure will achieve the stated objectives of the DCP outlined above.

·      The structure as proposed provides for a functional arrangement and will allow for public safety.

·      The proposed awning height will relate acceptably with existing and likely future awning structures within this section of the Town Centre.

·      A condition is included which requires the awning to be setback 600mm from the kerb.

 

Sub-section 7.1 - Natural Daylight, Overshadowing and Solar Access

The DCP details the following objectives in relation to Natural Daylight, Overshadowing and Solar Access:

 

·      To optimise solar access to habitable rooms and to minimise the need for artificial lighting during daylight hours.

·      To minimise the impact of overshadowing on the internal and outdoor areas of neighbouring buildings.

·      To retain the amenity of the public domain by maximising solar access.

 

The controls require to:

 

i)    Maintain sunlight access to private and public open spaces and north facing habitable rooms of adjoining development for at least 3 hours between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, where possible.

ii)   Ensure that building layouts facilitate good solar access to both internal and external living spaces e.g. ideally locate living areas (including their associated balconies) to the north and east, and service areas to the south and west of the development.

iii)  Maximise any northerly aspect and optimise the number of north facing windows. Shade north facing windows with roof eaves, verandahs or balconies, awnings or other horizontal shading devices.

iv)  Provide adjustable shade devices suitable for lower sun angles (e.g louvres/blinds) to openings on the eastern and western facades.

v)   Incorporate appropriately designed double glazed or energy efficient glass skylights and clerestory windows to improve daylight levels wherever possible.

vi)  Do not use coloured/opaque glass as a shading device.

vii) Protect roof terraces with shade cloth, planting, pergolas and/or vergolas.

viii) Ensure that living spaces of at least 70% of apartments in any new development receive a minimum of 3 hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June, unless existing overshadowing prevents this.

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring unit objecting to the height of the development to the proposed five storeys as it will impeach solar access and overshadow their apartment in the afternoon.  It was also noted that the proposed development does not meet solar access to 70% of the apartments and falls 9% short of the standard target. The applicable measurement for solar access should be 3hours rather than 2 hours as adopted.

 

The proposed development provides for nil setbacks to the northern and southern boundaries in accordance with the DCP and the apartment have dual aspect to the east - west to allow direct sunlight access into the living areas and balconies. The SOE which accompanies the application documents that 70% of the units will receive 3 hours of sunlight during the winter solstice in accordance with the requirements of the DCP.

 

Due to the east - west orientation of the site, the proposed subject and neighbouring mix use development immediately to the south will not receive the required amount of sunlight to its courtyard area and east facing balconies as required under the DCP.  The shadow diagrams in figure 2 below indicate that approximately 2 and half hours to a portion of the courtyard areas will receive solar access and the east facing balconies will only receive approximately 1 and a half hours to parts of the balconies.  This is not unreasonable given the orientation of the site, that existing development are contributing to majority of the overshadowing and the impacts associated with the development are related with a building envelope consistent with the neighbouring buildings.  The non-compliant building height and additional level is not considered to create significant additional impacts to the courtyard area and is generally in accordance with the intentions of the DCP. 

 

Moreover, the proposed development will comply with the 2 hour solar access requirement under the new Apartment Design Guide which is used in conjunction with SEPP No. 65 for Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) for residential apartment in NSW which also includes shop top development.

 

Louvres and shading devices are provided for in the development as per the requirements of the DCP.

 

Having regard to the overall level of compliance with the building envelope requirements of the DCP and this aspect of the design has been generally supported by the DCP the impacts associated with sunlight access both to and from the development are considered acceptable. The impact is therefore considered justified in the circumstances.

 

     

12pm                                                      12:30pm

 

     

1pm                                                        1:30pm

 

     

2pm                                                        2:30pm

 

3pm

 

Figure 2: Demonstrates the proposed and existing shadow impact to courtyard between 12pm and 3.30pm at mid-winter (21 June)

 

Sub-section 7.4 - Privacy - Visual

The DCP details the following objectives in relation to Privacy - Visual:

 

·      To provide reasonable levels of visual privacy externally and internally, during the day and night.

·      To maximise outlook and views from principal rooms and private open spaces without compromising visual privacy.

 

The controls require to:

 

i)        Design building layouts to minimise direct overlooking of rooms and private open spaces by:

 

·          separating communal open space, common areas and access routes from windows of rooms (particularly habitable rooms) changing the level between ground floor apartments (including their associated private open space) and the public domain or communal open space.

 

ii)       Maximise visual privacy by providing the following minimum physical separations between buildings:

 

·          Between habitable rooms -12 metres

·          Between habitable room and balconies/non-habitable - 9 metres

·          Between non-habitable rooms - 6 metres

 

iii)      Increase privacy without compromising amenity by:

·          offsetting windows of apartments in new development to windows in adjacent development;

·          recessing balconies and/or providing vertical fins between adjacent balconies;

·          using solid or semi-solid balustrades to balconies;

·          using louvres or screen panels to windows and/or balconies;

·          providing landscape screening;

·          incorporating planter boxes into walls or balustrades to increase the visual separation between areas; and/or

·          utilising pergolas or shading devices to limit overlooking of lower apartments or private open space.

 

Subject to conditions the amended proposal generally has been designed to minimise direct overlooking of rooms and private open spaces and complies with the relevant performance criteria for visual privacy.  The windows and balconies that face the courtyard area are provided with privacy louvres and building’s A & B are separated a minimum of 12m between habitable rooms.

 

To the east and west the development is separated from surrounding developments by Bunnerong Road and Baird Lane respectively with the exceptions of the front balconies on the fourth and fifth level to Block A and roof terrace to Block B requiring additional privacy measures to be implemented.  The physical separation provided by roadways the location of outbuildings on the properties to the west across Baird Lane and the distance to living areas of these properties will ensure an acceptable privacy interface.

 

To ensure reasonable privacy measures are maintained between the dwelling units it is recommended the following privacy measures be implemented to Block’s A & B:

 

·      Block A

The balustrading to the southern ends of balconies on the fourth and fifth levels are to be of solid form to eliminate overlooking in a downward direction.  Details of the finishes and materials are to be provided to Council for approval.

 

Note: The amended plans provided show obscure glazing being provided to these balconies therefore this condition is no longer required.

 

·      Block B

Planter boxes having a width of 900mm are to be provided to the southern and eastern edges of the roof terrace which fronts onto Baird Lane to minimise overlooking in a downward direction.

 

Subject to the above recommendations the proposed development will meet the above objectives of the control.

 


 

6.       Referral Comments

 

6.1     Development Engineers

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by Archi Spectrum, dated 14th October 2015;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by ABC Planning;

·      Carpark Certification by Motion Traffic Engineers dated February 2015;

·      Landscape Plan by Zenith Landscape Designs, dwg 15-2971 L01, dated 01.05.15.

 

Road Widening & Balcony Comments

At no cost to Council, a strip of land (approximately 0.7m) will be required to be dedicated to Council along the full Baird Lane frontage to facilitate construction of a 1.3m wide pedestrian footpath. An application for a subdivision certificate in respect to the road widening is required to be submitted and approved by Council and the plans registered at NSW LPI prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

The assessing officer is also advised that after the required road dedication in Baird Lane the proposed 1st, 2nd floor balconies fronting Baird Lane will encroach onto the road reserve by approximately 0.2m.

 

Development Engineering generally does not support developments encroaching into the road reserve and recommends a condition be included in any consent that reduces the width of the balconies (by approximately 0.2m)  such that they do not encroach onto Baird Lane. A recommended condition has been included in this report.

 

 

Parking Comments

Parking Requirements have been assessed adopting the rates specified in Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013.

 

Parking Provision - Residential

The residential component is for 13 units comprising of 5 x studio + 4 x 1 bedroom + 4 x 2 bedroom units. Adopting DCP parking rates this would require the following off-street parking provision.

 

Parking Required         = (5 x 0.5) + (4 x 1) + (4 x 1.2) + 13/4(visitor)

                                  = 2.5 + 4 + 4.8 + 3.25(visitor)

                                  = 14.55 spaces

 

Parking Provision - Commercial

The commercial component has been amended and now comprises of a single commercial tenancy with floor area 52.65m2

 

Parking Required         = 52.65/40

                                  = 1.31 spaces

 

Total Parking Required     = 14.55(Residential) + 1.31(Commercial)

                                      = 15.86

                                      = say 16 spaces

                                 

Total Parking Provided     = 14 spaces

 

Parking Deficiency           = 2 spaces (12.5%)

 

The parking deficiency generally relates to the provision of visitor spaces. In consideration of this shortfall it is noted;

 

·      The site is situated immediately adjacent to a Council carpark in Baird Lane which although heavily utilised will be able to accommodate the additional demand from the 2 visitor spaces without creating any unacceptable impacts.

·      The site is also in close proximity to a bus stop on Bunnerong Road serving major routes to the city, Eastgardens and Bondi Junction.

·      In consideration of the above factors there is no objection to the 2 space deficiency in this instance.

 

The high rate of dependency (85%) on mechanical devices to provide off-street parking is generally not supported by Development Engineering, and concern is raised on future maintenance and associated costs. It may also set an undesirable precedent with future development. Notwithstanding, the site does suffer from severe geometric constraints which make the provision of multi-level basement carparking extremely difficult to achieve. A system of car-stackers may be the only practical way to provide an adequate amount of off-street parking.

 

Motorbike Parking

Motorbike Parking is to be provided at 5% of the vehicle parking requirement.

 

Motorbike parking Required = 0.05 x 16 = 0.8 = say 1 space

 

No motorbike parking has been provided. The minor 0.8 deficiency in motorbike parking is not critical to the application.

 

Bicycle Parking

For Flats/multi dwelling bicycle parking to be provided at 1 space per 2 units plus 1 visitor space per 10 units

 

Bicycle Parking Required = 13/2 +13/10(visitor) = 6.5 + 1.3 = 7.8 = say 8 spaces

 

Bicycle Parking Required = No bicycle parking provided

 

The non-provision of bicycle parking is not supported. It has been conditioned that a minimum of 6 bicycle spaces be provided.

 

Parking Layout

The aisle width immediately adjacent to the carstackers is depicted on the submitted plans as 5.4m wide. This is less than the minimum 5.8m required under AS 2890.1:2004 and would generally not be supported by Development Engineering.

 

In support of the departure it is noted;

 

·      The minimum 5.8m aisle width required by AS 2890.1 is based on a minimum carspace width of 2.4m. The submitted plans indicate the carstacker spaces of  width 2.85m ( translating to a carstacker platform width of approximately 2.6m). The wider than normal spaces will compensate for the below standard aisle width.

 

·      Car sweeping paths and turning manoeuvres based on the B-85 design vehicle in AS 2890.1:2004 have been submitted in the traffic report by Motion Traffic Engineers. The sweeping paths demonstrate that although tight, a vehicle should be able to access the proposed carstacker and disabled spaces.

 

In consideration of these factors there is no objection to the proposed carspace layout

 

Undergrounding of site feed power lines

At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27th May 2014 it was resolved that;

 

Should a mains power distribution pole be located on the same side of the street  and within 15m of the development site, the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site via an underground UGOH connection.

 

The subject is located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is applicable. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Landscape Comments

There is no vegetation at all affected by this application, with conditions relating purely to the landscape treatment that will be provided to the site. The DRP comments from June this year have been noted in regards to the selection of a feature tree.

 

The public footpath has already been upgraded as part of a suburb wide improvement, with civil conditions in this report requiring that any damage be rectified wholly at the applicant’s cost.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is zoned zoned B2 Local Centre under RLEP 2012 and the proposed development is permissible with development consent within the R2 zone. 

 

The proposal seeks a variation to the development standard contained within Clause 4.3A, sub-section (2)(a), of the Randwick LEP 2012 relating to height of building.  The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation of the Exceptions to height of buildings in Matraville and Kensington development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.  The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning and strict compliance to the numerical standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in this case.

 

Subject to conditions the amended development will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the Matraville Commercial Centre.

 

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 the proposal in its amended form is consistent with the relevant planning controls as addressed in the report and is supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/335/2015 for demolition of the existing commercial building and construction of a new part 4 part 5 mixed use shop top housing development comprising of 2 retail lots, 13 residential units and rear ground floor level carpark for 14 vehicles, at No. 512 Bunnerong Road, Matraville, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

        Non standard conditions

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a)     Three adaptable dwellings must be designed and constructed within the development to a minimum Class C Certification under AS4299 Adaptable Housing. Details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

b)     In order to allow for natural light and ventilation to the lobby areas on levels 2 and 3 to Building ‘A’, a recessed slot shall be provided through Bedrooms 1 to apartments 6 & 10 on the 2nd and 3rd floor levels to align with the built form of apartment 1 on the first floor level. Details to be provided to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of the construction certificate.

 

c)     Planter boxes having a minimum depth of 900mm with planting species that achieve a maximum height of 600mm at maturity are to be provided to the southern and eastern sides of the roof terrace deck to Block B which fronts on to Baird Lane.

 

d)     The awning structure shall be setback 600mm from the street kerb.

 

e)     Following dedication of the required road widening in Baird Lane, no part of the proposed building must encroach into the road reserve. This shall include but not be limited to any balconies and roof structures.

     

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

 

5.       a)     The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

External materials, finishes and colours of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building and any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare.

 

b)     Detailed sections shall be provided at 1:50 scale to demonstrate the proposed material quality and finishes of Buildings A & B on all elevations, (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

          Section 94A Development Contributions

7.       The applicant shall submit a Quantity Survey report that reflects the approved development, prepared by a Registered Quantity Surveyor. The report shall be submitted to Council for approval, prior to the issue of any construction certificate for the development.

 

In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, 1% of the approved development cost provided in the approved Quantity Survey report must be paid to Council.

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment. Please contact Council on telephone 9399 0999 or 1300 722 542 for the indexed contribution amount prior to payment.

To calculate the indexed levy, the following formula must be used:

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

CP2 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney, as published by the ABS in  respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment

CP1 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the ABS in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of imposition of the condition requiring payment of the levy.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 512 Bunnerong Road, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D87/15

 

Subject:                  29 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/632/2015)

Folder No:               DA/632/2015

Author:                    Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Ground and first floor alterations to 29A Brook Street and amendment to strata subdivision of 29A and 29B Brook Street

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Hao Huynh

Owner:                    The Owners - Strata Plan No. 10828

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it involves a variation to the minimum lot size standard of greater than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes additions and alterations to the northern residential unit on the site identified as 29a Brook Street. Window changes are proposed to the northern side and eastern rear elevation, an upper level bedroom will be enlarged slightly to the rear, and an upper-level rear deck removed and replaced with a partly enclosed deck.

 

The first floor of the site was added in approximately 1989, however the strata was not updated and as such it is currently classed as common property, despite its current physical division between the two residential units.  The applicant therefore seeks to update the strata subdivision to reflect the physical layout of the site’s two residential units and the proposed additions and alterations. 

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the north-eastern side of Brook Street, approximately halfway between its intersections with Clovelly Road and Division Street. Brook Street is generally residential in character and sites along it feature a variety of dwelling styles. The surrounding area is predominately zoned R2 – low density residential.

 

The site contains a two-storied building that is divided into two dwellings. The building features a rendered brick ground floor, weather-board clad upper-floor, and tiled roof. Access to the dwellings is via separate doors at the front of the building, beneath an entry porch (refer fig. 1 below). A single level lean-to is present to the rear of the building, with upper-level balconies above.

 

The rear of the site generally contains gardens, some decking and a storeroom/laundry building. The rear of the site is deemed to be common property, but has been roughly divided in half with fencing/hedging for use by each dwelling. Two single hardstand car spaces are present in front of the building. The car spaces are separated from each other by a small raised garden/lawn area.

 

 

Figure 1. The front of the subject site from the street.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.


 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 Request to vary a Minimum Subdivision Lot Size Development Standard – RLEP 2012

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

 

The proposal contravenes the minimum subdivision lot size development standard of Clause 4.1A, contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted their written justification for the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

Clause 4.1A of the RLEP 2012 – Minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in Zone R2

 

Development Standard

400m2 minimum lot size resulting from the subdivision of a dual occupancy.

Proposal – Strata subdivision

Lot 1 area = 189m2. Lot 2 area = 219m2

Level of non-compliance with control (%)

52.8% (lot 1) and 45.3% (lot 2)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The objectives of the height standard are set out in clause 4.1A (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

“(1) The objective of this clause is to ensure that land to which this clause applies is not fragmented by subdivisions that would create additional dwelling entitlements.

 

The applicant has provided the following arguments in support of the Clause 4.6 exception (in summary form):

 

-     Proposed strata subdivision is consistent with objectives of Clause 4.1A as it seeks to correct the existing strata subdivision.

 

-     Presently the first floor of both 29A and 29B is not listed on the current Strata Plan, thus the first floor to both 29A and 29B is viewed as common property.

 

-     As such proposal is not to create any new lots, but to correct the existing lots to include the first floors to each lot in the Strata Plan.

 

Assessment comments:

The proposed does not create additional lots or entitlement for more dwellings on the subject site. The subject site contains two dwellings and the proposal is for two dwellings generally within the existing building and build form on the site.

 

In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the development standard and compliance with the development standard in relation to the roof is therefore considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

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

The applicant have highlighted within their written justification that the proposed contravention of the development standard is required to correct the strata layout of the site to reflect the physical delineation and will not create any new lots. Therefore, the applicant’s written request and accompanying documentation is considered to have successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because, as concluded above, 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.

Assessment 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 of the RLEP 2012 for the minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in the R2 Zone (clause 4.1A)

 

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, to maintain the low density housing forms or the amenity of surrounding residential areas, and generally preserves the existing dominant character of the site and its surroundings.

 

Side Setbacks

A 1.8m length of 1st storey wall to northern side of balcony and bedroom 2 is to be 570mm from northern side boundary, in line with the existing wall line.  This is non-compliant with the 900mm side setback required by clause 3.3.2 of the RCDCP 2013.

 

The proposed setback is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will not generate significant adverse environmental impacts. The proposed setback is in keeping with the existing character of the area - the proposed small addition to the upper-level is an extension to the existing northern wall alignment of the dwelling and will not move the building bulk closer to the northern boundary. In terms or the residential amenity of the site to the north - the addition will not enable additional overlooking into the site to the north due to the absence of new windows and the partial enclosure of the balcony. Sunlight admission to the site to the north will be generally unaltered due to its northern position relative to the proposed addition.  

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

The application is, therefore, recommended for approval subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.1A of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to the minimum subdivision lot size for strata plan schemes in Zone R2 respectively, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Environment be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/632/2015 for ground and first floor alterations to 29A Brook Street and amendment to strata subdivision of 29A and 29B Brook Street, Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 29 Brook Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D88/15

 

Subject:                  14 Mundarrah Street, Clovelly (DA/220/2015)

Folder No:               DA/220/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Alterations, first and second floor (roof) additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new boundary fence and solar panels on roof

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr J P Maxwell and Mrs C A Maxwell

Owner:                    Mr J P Maxwell and Mrs C A Maxwell

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview34304.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

Proposal

 

Original proposal: Alterations, first and second floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new boundary fence and solar panels on roof.

 

Amended application: The original application has been amended on several occasions with the latest amendments incorporated into plans received by Council on 6 October 2015. The amendments were re-notified from 6 October 2015 to 20 October 2015. The main amendments to the application include reducing the overall height, external wall height, redesigning the front elevation to be more consistent with the scale of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 12 Mundarrah Street, increasing the length of the car space to be more consistent with the car space approved under DA/417/2014, changing the proposed use of the upper level rear room from a living room into a bedroom and making the roof terrace non-trafficable. These key issues section discusses the original application, the amendments and areas of non-compliance.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Mundarrah Street (bounded by green in the aerial photo shown on the cover page of this report).   The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage width of 7.62m facing Mundarrah Street, and a rear width of 7.645m abutting the eastern side boundary of No. 17 Battery Street. The site has an overall site area of 232.9m².  The site rises to the rear from the front. Neighbouring the property to the north is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 12 Mundarrah Street. The adjoining semi-detached dwelling has a first floor level and an attic space that is required to be non-habitable. The neighbouring property to the south is a semi-detached dwelling at No. 16 Mundarrah Street. This semi-detached dwelling is single storey containing a kitchen, lounge and dining room openings facing north.

 

The surrounding area is residential in nature consisting predominantly residential dwellings varying in scales between single and two storeys in the locality which is within the Foreshore Scenic Protection area. An aerial view of the subject site and surrounding area is provided on the page 1 of this report.

 

Photo of subject site at 14 Mundarrah Street Clovelly. Dwelling at left is identified as No. 16 Mundarrah Street.

Photo of adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 12 Mundarrah Street showing attic addition at top level and flat building further north at No. 10 Mundarrah Street.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

11 Mundarrah Street – several submissions received by this objector and for the purpose of clarity prior to each issue the date that amended plans were received by Council precede each issue raised by the objector.

 

Issue

Comment

18 August 2015: Request for new notification of amended plans received 18 August 2015 for the following reasons:

 

 

 

·    Inadequate, illegible, missing & misleading documentation: Graphic quality of online documentation is poor to enable to assess and make considered judgements about various issues namely shadow impacts, legends outlines and comparative heights.

 

·    Photomontages (18 August 2015) are misleading showing upper storey to No. 16 Mundarrah Street which has not been constructed

 

·    Discrepancies exists between the side and front elevation windows shown in photomontages and elevation drawings. No reference made to changes in window openings.

 

·    Absence of neighbouring property owners, at the rear (NO. 17 Battery St.) and south (No. 16 Mundarrah St.) the property most impacted by the proposal. One could question the timing of the submission of amended plans.

Notification period of the amended plans received by Council on 18 August was extended to 14 days following submission of digital copies of amended plans received 28 August 2015.

 

·      The applicant submitted digital copies of the abovementioned amended plans (received 28 August 2015). These plans were made available through Councils tracking service and renotified for 14 days.

 

 

 

·      There are no concerns with showing an approved first floor level on a photo montage.

 

 

·      An assessment is carried out against the elevation plans and not photomontages.

 

 

 

·      Amended plans were sent to the owners of the southern neighbour’s property via email. It is noted that submission were received from the owners of these properties.

18 August 2015:

 

Reliance on precedent for the proposed development.

 

 

Precedent is not a valid planning consideration.

 

28 August 2015: Direct impact including:

 

Overshadowing

 

 

The proposed development at 4pm will result in very long shadows from the proposed development measuring in length between 50m for wall lengths and 59m and 63m for the top ridges of the small gable sited 6.7m from the front and the larger gable 9.1m from the front boundary.

 

The direction of the shadows is referenced at 306degrees from these points and shown in approximate in the aerial photo below. Essentially the aerial photo shows that the only time in which shadows affect the objector’s rear yard is at around 4pm or just before 4pm which is the maximum time at which analysis is considered reasonably able to be protected.

 

In this instance, it is not considered that the proposed development which exhibits a similar size and scale to the adjoining semi at No. 12 Mundarrah Street warrants any variation for the purposes of reducing the shadow impact on this objectors property.

Aerial photo: showing the general direction of shadows at 4pm. The red shadow lines show that cast by the smaller gable (6.7m from the front boundary) and the yellow show the shadow cast by the larger gable roof element (setback 9.1m from the front boundary). It is also important to consider that the gable roofs of No. 12 Mundarrah Street would also cast shadows onto the rear yard of this neighbours rear yard area..

Privacy impact from the following windows:

 

Second floor front window (W24)

 

 

First floor south facing window (W11)

 

 

Deleted with the amended second floor plan

 

Sill height of 1.6m provides sufficient privacy.

 

Note: In relation to the intent of the RDCP 2013 controls regarding privacy, it is considered that whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal may result in some additional privacy impact, it should be noted that in the urban context, complete privacy between dwellings is often not achievable or practicable, and some limited glimpses between neighbours may be acceptable. The emphasis of the control is on minimising direct viewing and overlooking from the indoor and outdoor living areas of dwellings to maintain the amenity of the neighbours. It is also noted that the separation between the proposed front elevation and the objector’s boundary along Mundarrah Street is around which is considered sufficient for the purposes of privacy protection.

18 August 2015: Streetscape impacts from the second storey addition one room removed from the front elevation.

The scheme has been amended further ensuring a reduced scale at the front elevation associated with the small gable to be more coherent with the size of the gable on the adjoining property at No. 12 Mundarrah Street. The second floor addition at the rear now resembles a two storey scale.

18 August 2015: Removal of trees

See comments made in response to other objector’s concerns relating to trees.

18 August 2015: possible loss of the Melaleuca tree.

Impacts on trees have been considered by Councils Landscape officer.

6 October 2015: Amended plans received by Council 6 October 2015 were not available at Councils Customer service centre.

It is unfortunate that the plans received by Council were not on display at the Customer Service Centre although they were available through Councils DA tracking service.

 

The plans were made available at the Customer Service Centre. The notification period was extended a further 7 days (total of 13 days) taking the total days of notification for these plans to 21 days which is 7 days more than the legislated 14 day notification period. It is further noted digital plans were sent to the objector very shortly after the beginning of the notification period.

 

This objector has since made a submission relating to these latest set of amended plans received by Council 6 October 2015.

 

12 Mundarrah Street

Issue

Comment

2 April, 18 August and 6 October 2015:

External wall of the development along the northern side will impede the dormers south facing window

The development has been reduced in height by 300mm so that it complies with the overall height standards.

The proposed external wall height exceeds the maximum under the RDCP 2013, however it is not considered that a further reduction is necessary given that the dormer window is attached to a non-habitable attic space and the attic space has a northern side window which should allow for sufficient light to this non-habitable area.

 

Da/765/2008/b imposed condition 57 which reads as follows:

 

Condition 57

The attic floor is to be used for non-habitable purposes only and shall not be let, adapted or used for separate residential occupation or commercial purposes at any time.

 

16 Mundarrah Street

Issue

Comment

2 April 2015:

 

Privacy impact from W12  - stairwell window

 

 

 

 

Privacy impact from W24 – second floor level study room window

 

 

 

 

Privacy impact from roof terrace

 

 

6 October 2015: Amended plans showing this window to the stairs is treated with obscured glazing (and conditioned to be fixed to minimum of 1.6m above internal floor level)

 

6 October 2015: The amended application replaces this window with a skylight (S3) with an effective height of 1.6m above internal floor level which satisfies the controls under the RDCP 2013.

 

6 October 2015: Amended plans replace roof terrace with a non-trafficable green roof. Further conditions attached removing the balustrade – see recommendation and key issues section of report.

2 April 2015, 18 August and 6 October: Significant shadowing to living areas that currently receive sunlight all day. 

Acknowledged. However see key issues section relating to overshadowing and solar access to neighbouring properties.

2 April 2015: The Clause 4.6 in arguing the height non-compliance is questionable

6 October 2015: The amended application reduces the overall height and does not require a Clause 4.6 exception to the a development standard.

2 April 2015,18 August : The proposal has excessive external wall heights resulting in adverse impacts such as visual amenity and overshadowing.

6 October 2015: plans show complying external wall heights along the southern elevation. See discussion under key issues section relating to external wall heights

18 August 2015: Poor resolution of elevation shadow diagrams.

The digital version of plans received by Council on 28 August was sent to the objectors via email.

18 August 2015: No covering letter

A covering letter received by Council on 28 August 2015 & 4 September and sent to the objectors.

18, 28 August 2015 & 4 September 2015: Covering letter references various amended documentation as Issue B yet the plans reference Issue C.

The latest covering letter reference issue (f) documentation consistent with the latest set of amended plans received by Council on 6 October 2015 which are the subject of assessment.

18 & 28 August 2015: photomontage is are at inconsistent eye levels

An assessment of the development is carried out against the submitted elevation and floor plans and not in relation to photomontages.

18 & 28 August 2015: Shadow plans are inadequate and as discerned there will be total loss of solar access to the north facing windows, rear yard in the morning and results in an inability to install solar collectors on the roof form.

Shadow plans received on 6 October are considered to reasonably show the level of impact. See discussions under key issues section of this report.

18 August 2015: excessive height and bulk issues associated with the second floor addition which exceeds the 7m maximum external wall height control under the RDCP 2013.

6 October 2015: Amended plans address this issue ensuring complying external wall heights along the southern elevation.

 

18 August 2015 and 6 October 2015: Setbacks should be 1.5m at first floor level.

Setback controls for first floor levels on semi-detached dwellings is 900mm under Part C1 of the RDCP 2013. The proposal complies with this side setback.

18 August 2015: Excessive FSR 0.98:1 above 0.5:1 that do not apply to the site measuring less than 300sqm.

See key issues section and assessment against the FSR ratio objectives. It is noted that the 0.5:1 standard does not apply to dwellings and semi-detached dwellings irrespective of the land size. The FSR standard applying to developments between 300sqm and 450sqm is 0.75:1, which is just below the 0.88:1 FSR proposed as part of the amended application shown in plans received by Council on 6 October 2015. Notwithstanding, it is considered that the distribution of the floor area is the main consideration and in this instance, the proposed development resembles a two storey size and scale which is the size and scale envisaged by the RLEP 2012 and under Part C1 of the RDCP 2013.

18 August 2015: 3rd level represents an overdevelopment of the site

Amended plans received by Council on 6 October substantially reduce the scale and size of the development from the southern and western elevation.

18 August 2015: privacy screen does not provide sufficient privacy for our small rear courtyard garden.

The privacy screen shown on the trafficable roof terrace will be sufficient for the purposes of visual privacy. It however is not considered an appropriate location for an area of private open space as it contains the potential for sleep disturbance on neighbouring properties which can be reasonably ameliorated without increasing the massing along the southern elevation and therefore impacting on visual amenity and overshadowing and to a degree streetscape character.

18 August 2015: Removal of two gum trees as it results in the loss of natural wildlife and removes a natural visual privacy screen for properties south of the flat building at No. 10 Mundarrah St.

See comments provided by Councils Landscape Officer. A mature tree replacement is conditioned.

18 August 2015: Do not intent to proceed with first floor addition. Submission received as addendum to previous submission.

Noted. The fact that a first floor addition is shown on the submitted documentation does not cloud assessment required against the Act and the associated policy documents.

18 August 2015: The proposed would set an undesirable precedent. Submission received as addendum to previous submission.

Noted and it is considered that these amended plans received by Council on 18 August and further by digital form on 28 august 2015 would result in an excessive size and scale when viewed from neighbouring properties and have unreasonable adverse impacts.

 

6 October 2015: The amended plans received by Council on 6 October 2015  resolve compliance with the majority of Councils controls and objectives having regard to Floor space, overall heights, external wall heights and minimising the amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties to a reasonable level.

Seeking further extension of time received 7 September 2015.

Further extension of 7 days granted to 14 September 2015 in relation to digital plans received by Council on 28 August 2015 (clearer copies of plans received 18 August 2015).

6 October 2015: making the green roof area non-trafficable is unworkable.

It is noted that the installation of a balustrade would potential allow for use of this area rather than purely as a green roof. Therefore a condition is included requiring the deletion of the balustrade.

6 October 2015: the applicant should employ a more skilful and responsive design.

The proposed development as conditioned and amended is considered to have balanced the requirements for streetscape character being respected as well as minimising the impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Town Planner (SGB advisory) on behalf of 16 Mundarrah Street

Issue

Comment

6 October 2015: Size and scale of Development will have detrimental impact to the streetscape scale and character. .

 

 

The proposed size and scale of development is generally a two storey scale. The second storey addition is set back 6.5m from the front elevation and 13.1m from the front boundary. Further the form of the from the front elevation by 6.5.1m with the size and scale of development sh

 

18 Mundarrah Street

Issue

Comment

18 August 2015: Request an extension on behalf of No. 16 Mundarrah Street.

 

An extension was granted to these owners.

 

 

15 Battery Street

Issue

Comment

18 August 2015 and 6 October 2015: Size and height of building is incongruous with the small site and character of the neighbourhood.

Noted.

 

Amended plans received 6 October 2015 reduce the size and height of the development – see key issues discussions above.

18 August 2015 and 6 October 2015: Removal of two trees in the rear yard of the subject site will result in adverse environmental and privacy impacts.

Councils Landscape Officer has assessed the condition and amenity that these two trees possess and makes the recommendation that these trees are no considered worthy of retention. In their place the applicant proposes a mature tree in the rear yard thus satisfying the requirements under the RDCP 2013.

 

In relation to privacy the proposed windows at first floor level are attached to a bedroom which is not a room that would lend itself to being a significant source of privacy concerns.

 

17 Battery Street

Issue

Comment

2 April 2015: Removal of two trees in the rear yard of the subject site will result in the loss of substantial amenity associated with the flora and fauna that these trees represent.

Councils Landscape Officer has assessed the condition and amenity that these two trees possess and makes the recommendation that these trees are no considered worthy of retention. In their place the applicant proposes a mature tree in the rear yard thus satisfying the requirements under the RDCP 2013.

2 April and 18 August 2015: The second floor level and proposed development contains too much bulk, scale and height and obtrusive.

The second floor level has been redesigned reducing its massing at the rear western elevation opposite this neighbours property reducing its obtrusiveness. The additional overshadowing caused by the non-complying wall height along the northern and rear elevation will not result in any significant increase in overshadowing above that which would be associated with a gable roof form along the rear. Moreover, the neighbour’s ground level elevated rear deck and north facing openings will still receive at least three hours of solar access during the shortest day of the year.

2 April and 18 August 2015: The second floor level is located in close proximity to our property and does not meet the rear setback controls under the RDCP 2013

The rear setback of the development is considered acceptable see discussion under key issue section of this report.

 

Ground level

 

It is acknowledged that the ground floor level is setback only 5.85m from the rear however this level is set well below the elevated rear ground level deck at No. 17 Battery Street.

 

First floor level

 

The first floor level is setback 6.955m from the rear boundary which is only marginally short of the 7.6m minimum rear setback control under the RDCP 2013. The difference between a complying rear setback at this level and that proposed is minimal in terms of visual amenity and impacts.

18 August 2015: The shadow plans omit showing our entertaining deck

The overshadowing to this deck has been considered in the assessment of the application using material referenced in DA’s for the objector’s property as well as DA for the property at No. 16 Mundarrah Street. The deck location is shown in the key issues section in excerpts of shadow plans. These show that after 10am solar access will be retained to this deck.

18 August 2015: Privacy impact

The proposed development contains sufficient privacy protection to the objector’s premises. I tis noted that the first floor level contains a bedroom window which is a type of room that would contain its own privacy measures and not a room that lends itself to adverse privacy intrusion.

18 August 2015: Precedent will result in speculating developers to follow suit.

Precedent is not a relevant matter for consideration. A merit assessment has been carried out and it is considered that the proposed development is worthy of a recommendation for approval.

In this respect, it is considered that the proposed size, and scale of the proposed development is considered acceptable for the subject site having regard to streetscape character and neighbours amenity. See key issues discussion further above.

 

Key Issues

 

Floor space ratio (FSR)

The RLEP 2012 does not apply a numerical maximum floor space ratio (FSR) standard for sites less than 300sqm instead requiring for these small sites a merit assessment of a proposal’s size and scale. The RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 identify the FSR as a measure that assists in controlling the mass and bulk of a development that operates in conjunction with building height, wall height and setback controls to define the 3D space within which a development may occur.

 

The underlying purpose of requiring a merit assessment rather than applying a numerical limit relates to an understanding that these small sites were part of pre-car era of small lot subdivision and that these sites have been the subject of numerous varying scales of development.

 

A merit assessment is carried out against the following objectives under the RLEP 2012:

 

(1)  The relevant objectives of the FSR clause 4.3 in the RLEP 2012 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,

(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 originally calculated FSR was 0.96:1, the proposal as amended now has a smaller floor space ratio of 0.88:1. Council’s concerns with the original application related to the excessive size and scale of the development at both the front and side elevations. Each of these elements of the development are addressed as follows.

 

Front elevation

The original application proposed a skillion roof form at the front which was inconsistent with and did not integrate with the size and scale of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 12 Mundarrah Street, as well as another dwelling within the street at No. 18 Mundarrah Street. The applicant submitted amended plans on 18 August 2015 that showed more consistent gable roof form at the front. There continued to be a concern with the amended plans that the higher wall along the common side boundary would both dominate and present disjointedly against the front elevation of the adjoining semi at No. 12 Mundarrah Street, as well as other semi-detached dwellings along Mundarrah Street and therefore detract from the streetscape character.

 

Amended plans

In response to the above concerns, the applicant submitted amended plans received by Council on 6 October 2015 incorporating a gable roof form and wall that is more consistent with the size and scale of the semi-detached dwellings in the street (see Figure 6 further below).

 

Side elevation

Original proposal

The applicant was advised that the second floor level notably along the southern elevation contained a size and scale that would result in avoidable adverse impacts such as visual amenity and overshadowing on the neighbouring property to the south and also exceed the size and scale that is envisaged by the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013.

 

Amended plans

The 6 October 2015 amendments included the following changes:

 

·      Reduction of the overall height

·      Reduction in the external wall height along the southern elevation by redesigning the second floor level so that it resembles a hipped roof form when viewed from the side elevation. This redesign distributes the size and scale of the development to the north where the adverse impacts will not be discernible and are substantially negligible.

·      Replace the upper level living room with a bedroom which does not rely on a high floor to ceiling height.

·      Shadow diagrams seeking to demonstrate that although the development results in significant shadow impact to the southern neighbour’s ground level north facing windows it will nonetheless achieve complying solar access levels to a mock-up of a first floor level – see discussion below under Solar access and overshadowing.

 

The amended plans received by Council on 6 October are more consistent with the scale of development envisaged by the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013. Whilst the application continues to provide for habitable elements within the upper level, the amendments have substantially reduced the scale, massing and bulk of the development so that these upper level elements are neither immediately noticeable from street level, and neither will they result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties having regard to visual amenity, privacy, view loss. Solar access and overshadowing are considered in a section further below.

 

Overall, the proposal as amended is considered to satisfy the relevant objectives for Floor space ratios under the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 having particular regard to streetscape character and minimising impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Overall height

Original proposal

The original proposal had an overall height of 9.67m (RL41.975 – RL32.305) at a distance of 1600mm from southern side boundary exceeding the 9.5m maximum under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

Amended plans

The applicant submitted amended plans received by Council 6 October that showed a reduction in the overall height to 9.37m (RL41.675 – RL32.305) at 4500mm from the southern side boundary. At the rear elevation, adjacent to the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 12 Mundarrah Street, the overall height is 8.78m (RL41.675 – RL32.895). The amended overall height as shown in figure 1 below demonstrates that the amended development complies with the 9.5m maximum permitted under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

 

External wall height

Original proposal

The original proposal had a 9.67m external wall height aligning with the vertical walls of the upper floor level thus exceeding the 7m maximum external wall height control under the RDCP 2013 (Section 3.2 of Part C1) – shown in figure 1 above and figure 3 below.

 

 

Amended plans

The amendments essentially redesign the upper level incorporating a hipped roof element along the southern elevation reducing the external wall down to between 6.577m and 6.983m along the southern elevation which is setback between 900mm and 1.6m from the southern side boundary – shown in figure 1 above and figure 4 below.

 

 

The external wall along the northern common boundary has an external wall of 9.37m aligning with the habitable upper level and does not meet the 7m maximum under the RDCP 2013. There are no objections to the height of this wall as it will continue to satisfy the objectives for building height under Section 3.2 in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 as it is setback from the front elevation ensuring it is not immediately noticeable from street level and it does not contribute to any unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties having regard to visual amenity, overshadowing (see discussion further below), privacy or view loss.

 


 

Rear Setback

The proposed development has a rear setback of 5.85m for the ground level, 6.955m for the first floor level and 7.492m for the second floor level (upper habitable roof). The proposed rear setback does not meet the 7.6m minimum rear setback that should be provided on a site of this depth (25% of 30.518m) as required under Section 3.3.3 in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013.

 

The RDCP 2013, permits variations to the rear setback control having regard to the predominant rear setback within the urban block, and the need to achieve reasonable sharing of views and to protect privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

Despite the proposed rear setbacks not meeting the minimum control under the RDCP 2013 the proposed rear setbacks are considered adequate and meet the objectives under the RDCP 2013 for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed ground level has a rear setback that is consistent with the rear setback of the dwelling at No. 16 Mundarrah Street

 

·      The proposed first floor has a rear setback that is only 645mm short of the minimum required under the RDCP 2013. To assist with minimising overshadowing to the neighbouring property at No. 16 Mundarrah Street a condition is included requiring the blade walls along the northern and southern sides of the first floor level to be deleted.

 

·      The proposed upper level roof element is only 108mm (10.8cm) short of the minimum rear setback control. As this element is designed as a roof element that is hipping back to the centre of the site (approximately 4500mm from the southern side boundary) it is not considered that the development’s rear setback at the first floor or second floor roof level will result in any unreasonable overshadowing or visual amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties greater than that which would occur with a complying rear boundary setback.

 

·      The additional overshadowing to the southern neighbour’s property will be cast onto their north facing dining room window only which also receives complying levels of solar access during the winter solstice between 1pm up to 4pm – see shadow key issues section further below.

 

·      This neighbour’s rear yard will receive a minimum of three hours of solar access during the Winter Solstice.

                                          

Additional Design Provisions for Semi-detached dwellings

Original proposal

The original proposal (shown in figure 5) had a front skillion roof which was inconsistent with the scale and bulk of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling’s gable roof form and did not comply with the control under Section 4.2 in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013. This section of the RDCP requires alterations and additions to recognise the subject site as being half of a pair of a similar or complementary building and to more carefully integrate the alterations and additions with the form and scale of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 12 Mundarrah Street.

 

 

Amended plans

The amended application as shown in figure 6 below, redesigned the front elevation into a gable roof form to be more consistent with the scale and built form of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling (right of the subject dwelling) as well as the scale of another semi-detached dwelling at No. 18 Mundarrah Street (shown two lots to the left of the subject development in Figure 6 below).

 

 

It is noted that the proposal continues to show variations in fenestration and built elements that are more contemporary and not the same as those more traditional elements exhibited on the adjoining semi-detached dwelling. Despite these variations not being the same, they are nevertheless considered to contain similar scale and therefore will be complimentary and not dominate the more traditional fenestrations and built elements exhibited on other developments along Mundarrah Street. The proposed development is considered to achieve an appropriate level of integration with the built form of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and will contribute to the streetscape character.

 


 

Car space

Original proposal

The original application showed a car space whose length was shorter than the minimum required under Section 6.7 in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013. It is noted that the original application makes reference to an already approved car space at the front (under DA/417/2014); however this approval showed a section of the existing dwelling cut out in order to accommodate suitably sized car space.

 

Amended plans

The amended application now includes a cut out section of the dwelling so that the car space length is suitable having regard to Section 6.7 in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 and is generally consistent with the previously approved car space under DA/417/2014.

 

Roof terrace

Original proposal

The original application included a trafficable roof terrace attached to a living room.

 

Amended plans

The applicant amended their application making the roof terrace a non-trafficable green roof and changing the use of the room attached into a bedroom –  a less intensively used room than the originally proposed living room.

 

These amendments inclusive of those reducing the wall height along the southern elevation are considered to have suitably addressed Council’s concerns with the massing and potential for adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

·      Green roof

 

The amended application shows a doorway leading from the hall onto the roof for maintenance purposes as well as a balustrade along the southern elevation of the green roof. There are no objections to the maintenance door being included however the amended proposal shows a balustrade at the southern elevation which is considered unnecessary and potentially allows the use of this area. In order to ensure a manageable condition restricting this roof area as non-trafficable it is considered reasonable to include a condition deleting the balustrade from the development as follows:

 

The upper level green roof shall be subject to the following:

·        Be non-trafficable and accessible for maintenance purposes only

·        Balustrade along the southern side of the roof shall be removed and anchor installed for the purposes of safe maintenance

·        Planting shall consist of only low level and low maintenance species

 

 

Solar access to neighbouring properties.

The development is subject to Part C1 of RDCP 2013 Section 5.1 solar access objectives and controls that seek to ensure the design, orientation and siting of development maximizes solar access to the living areas of dwellings and open spaces and retains reasonable levels of solar access to the neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed development as originally submitted contained elements of size and scale along the southern elevation that were excessive resulting in greater overshadowing to the neighbouring properties than that which would occur if the development complied with the external wall and overall height controls under Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 and Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2013 respectively.

 

The amended application reduces both the height of the external wall along the southern elevation and the overall height to comply with the maximums under the RDCP 2013 and the RLEP 2012 respectively.

 

Submissions were received from the nearest neighbouring properties at No. 17 Battery Street and No. 16 Mundarrah Street – identified in the aerial photo below – showing the affected areas within these neighbouring properties.

 

Aerial photo of subject site and neighbouring properties showing neighbouring properties bounded in red at No. 17 Battery Street south west of the site and No. 16 Mundarrah Street south of the subject site.

 

Controls

Section 5.1 in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013 relating to solar access and overshadowing to neighbouring properties requires a minimum of three hours (on 21 June) to the following areas of neighbouring properties:

 

1.  Private open space (rear yard)

2.  Roof plane capable of containing solar collectors (requiring a minimum of 6m above natural ground level) and

3.  North facing living room windows

 

Variations

The RDCP 2013 also identifies that variations to the minimum 3 hours during the winter solstice may be considered in light of a merit assessment having regard to the following factors:

 

Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls.

Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block.

Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

Location and level of the windows in question.

Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

Assessment

An assessment of overshadowing is carried out in relation to the following addresses:

 

Ø 17 Battery Street, Clovelly

Ø 16 Mundarrah Street Clovelly

 

Ø 17 Battery Street, Clovelly

This site is on north-south axis and contains a semi-detached dwelling with its rear elevation facing north and an elevated ground level deck measuring around 3m in depth. The rear elevation dissects the rear boundary of No. 16 Mundarrah Street and the rear deck aligns generally with the common side boundary shared between No. 16 Mundarrah St and the subject site at No. 14 Mundarrah Street.

 

1.  Private open space (rear deck and rear yard) and

2.  north facing windows

 

Additional overshadowing

The shadow diagram excerpts below are at 8am, 9am and 10am during the winter solstice. The 8am and 9am shadow diagrams shows additional overshadowing to the private open space (rear elevated deck), rear yard and north facing windows of No. 17 Battery Street. The 10am shadow diagram shows no additional shadows to any of these parts of 17 Battery Street.

 

8am shadow diagram

 


 

9am shadow diagram

 

10am shadow diagram:

 

 

Ø 16 Mundarrah Street

This neighbours property is located immediately south of the subject site with both properties orientated in an east-westerly direction. This orientation means that the proposed development results in the most significant overshadowing impacts and loss of solar access to this neighbours north facing windows and roof plane areas.

 

The overshadowing impacts are assessed having regard to the following areas of No. 16 Mundarrah Street:

 

1)  Rear yard (Private open space)

2)  Roof plane capable of containing solar collectors (requiring a minimum of 6m above natural ground level) and

3)  North facing living room windows

 

1)  Rear yard

 

The shadow excerpts above show overshadowing to the rear yard of No. 16 Mundarrah Street. At 10am the shadow starts to recede (blue dashed line) showing the rear yard starting to retain solar access. At 11am and 12noon – see diagrams below - overshadowing recedes from affecting half of the neighbours rear yard to no part of the rear yard being affected by overshadowing from the proposed development. Shadow diagrams for 1pm, and 2pm have not been provided which would show he impact from the dwelling at No. 17 Battery Street., however using CSIRO data on the angle of sun on 21 June, the rear yard of No. 16 Mundarrah Street will continue to retain solar access to parts of its rear yard between 1pm and 2pm.

 

Overall the rear yard of No. 16 Mundarrah Street will retain at least three hours of solar access during the winter solstice thus complying with the RDCP 2013 control under Section 5.1.

 

11am Shadow diagram:

12 noon shadow diagram:

 

2)  Roof plane capable of containing solar collectors (requiring a minimum of 6m above natural ground level) and

 

Section 5.1 control v) requires solar access to existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing). Where the neighbouring dwellings do not contain any solar panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes of neighbouring dwellings, which are at least 6m above ground level (existing), so that future solar panels capture not less than 3 hours of sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June may be installed.

Elevation shadows:

The applicant has provided elevation shadow diagrams on the hour between 8am, and 12 noon - excerpts shown below. These shadow diagrams demonstrate compliance that is that the proposed development satisfies the requirements under Section 5.1 v) allowing for over three hours of solar access to the roof sections 6m above ground level.

 

Legend:

Explanation

Red line:

The red line bounding green identifies the overshadowing from the proposed development as amended

Purple shade:

Shading cast by the originally proposed development.

Black line:

Shows the existing hipped roof line of NO. 16 Mundarrah Street (RL39.059).

Orange line:

Shows 6m height line above ground level existing. Taken to be from RL32.305. The neighbour’s roof has a hipped roof form that has a maximum ridge height of RL39.059 running approximately three metres along its common side boundary shared with No. 18 Mundarrah Street (taken from Survey submitted with the DA). Approximately 875mm below the ridge.

 

Reasoning: The reasoning behind requiring solar access to a roof that is at least 6m in height is the idea that a two storey scale of development is the general size and scale of development envisaged by the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013. As such it would be onerous to require solar access to existing or future solar collectors below this height.

First floor level:

The first floor level shown is approved however the owners indicated that they are unlikely to proceed with its construction. The benefit of showing a notional first floor level is to show the likely level of solar access to a first floor level.

 

8am elevation shadow: Additional overshadowing above the 6m height line (orange line). Additional shadows to the top part of living rooms.

 

9am elevation shadow: No shadows cast above the 6m roof line (orange line). Ground level windows totally overshadowed. Solar access available to a notional first floor level.

 

 

10am elevation shadow: Total loss of shadows to ground level openings. Notional first floor level will receive solar access.

 

11am elevation shadow: Total loss of solar access to ground level north facing openings. No impact to roof 6m above ground level (existing). Notional first floor level receives solar access across the whole surface.

 

 

 

12 noon elevation shadow: Ground level north facing living room windows totally overshadowed. No impact on roof 6m above ground level existing. Notional first floor level receives solar access across whole of its northern elevation.

 

3).    North facing living room windows

As demonstrated in the elevation shadow diagrams above, the north facing living room windows (lounge, kitchen and dining room) will be totally overshadowed during the winter solstice. The proposed development (as amended) does not meet the RDCP control requiring a minimum of three (3) hours of solar access to neighbours north facing living room windows during the winter solstice (21 June) between 8am and 4pm.

 

Given the non-compliance with the RDCP numerical control, an assessment is required to determine if in the circumstances of the site and development that the loss of solar access to the neighbours north facing ground level living room windows are acceptable.

 

·          Variations

The RDCP 2013 allows for such variations to requiring the minimum 3 hours during the winter solstice having regard to the following factors:

 

Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls.

Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block.

Location and level of the windows in question.

Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

The question therefore is whether compliance with the controls should be insisted upon having regard to the circumstances of the subject site, the neighbouring property and the proposed development.

 

Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls

 

FSR

The proposed developments FSR as assessed above is considered to satisfy the FSR objectives under Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012. In brief, whilst the development has an FSR of 0.88:1 it generally presents as a two storey scale from the front and the southern side boundary with the habitable second floor level contained within a hipped style room form. In other words, the proposed development as amended resembles a two storey roof form disguising the fact that there is a habitable element within the roof. It is noted that no dormers or attic elements are proposed such as those incorporated into the development adjacent to the north at NO. 12 Mundarrah Street. If they were sought along the southern elevation as originally proposed there would be greater levels of overshadowing than that caused by the as amended proposed development.

 

Height

The proposed developments overall height complies with the maximum 9.5m standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed developments external wall height along the southern elevation complies with the 7m maximum control under the RDCP 2013.

The proposed external wall height along the northern elevation exceeds the 7m maximum control under the RDCP 2013. This external wall height along the northern elevation does not however translate into any appreciable increase in overshadowing above that resulting from the complying southern elevations external wall height. As well the height of this wall is not dissimilar to the height of the attic style additions at No. 12 Mundarrah Street.

 

Setbacks

The proposed development complies with the side setback controls in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013. The nil setback from the northern side boundary is considered to satisfy the objectives under the RDCP 2013.

 

The proposed development has a rear setback that does not meet the minimum required under in part C1 of the RDCP 2013. The rear elevation contains blade walls along the northern and southern elevations. These are not considered necessary and a condition is included requiring these to deleted from the development. This should improve levels of solar access to the during the afternoon period.

 

Site coverage

The proposed development complies with the maximum site coverage control in Part C1 of the RDCP 2013.

 

Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block and Location and level of the windows in question.

 

Very small sized site configured on an east-west axis means that the southern neighbours north facing windows at ground level will be particularly vulnerable to loss of solar access and overshadowing.

 

Existing

As shown in the elevation shadow diagrams above, the existing single storey dwelling already results in additional shadows to this neighbours north facing windows. The subdivision pattern shows a consistent orientation of properties on an east west axis.

 

Proposed

The proposed development (as amended) will result in the total loss of solar access during the winter solstice. The originally proposed developments wall height was reduced in order to ensure that solar access would at least be retained to a notional first floor level.

 

Lounge and Kitchen

To a large extent this neighbour’s ground level north facing windows along the middle of their dwelling (lounge and kitchen) are particularly vulnerable to overshadowing where in many respects it is largely inevitable with any reasonable two storey scale development of No 14 Mundarrah Street. It is further that the adjoining semi at No. 12 Mundarrah Street and a semi further south at No. 18 Mundarrah Street contain two storey scaled developments on their properties.

 

Dining

The dining room is also overshadowed from 8am up to just after 12 noon. From 1pm to 4pm this opening retains solar access (referencing CSIRO data during the winter solstice).

 

Overall, having regard to the orientation of the site on an east-west axis, and the location of the southern neighbours ground level north facing living room windows within the middle of their site the southern neighbours property is particularly vulnerable to overshadowing. Further, the proposed two storey scale is not inconsistent with the two storey size and scale of development envisaged by Part C1 Low Density Residential under the RDCP 2013 or the height and FSR standards and objectives under the RLEP 2012. The proposed development is considered to satisfy the variations to the requirement for three hours of solar access identified under the RDCP 2013. The additional shadow impacts are largely an unavoidable consequence rather than as a result of any inappropriate design.

 

Development engineering and Landscape Officer

The following comments were provided:

 

Amended plans have been received showing changes to front setback of the dwelling, reducing the overall height of the building by 300mm, changes to the roof design, internal reconfiguration and window openings on elevations, new privacy screen to upper level courtyard.

 

Original proposal: Alterations, first and second floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new boundary fence and solar panels on roof (variation to building height control) existing dwelling.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·      Amended Architectural Plans by Entrance Hall Designs Issue C stamped 28th August 2015;

·      Statement of Environmental Effects by Entrance Hall Designs stamped 2nd April 2015 ;

 

Car Space Comments

Following issues raised in previous memo finalised 8th July 2015 amended plans and additional information have been received that now clarify that the carspace is to be constructed in accordance with DA/417/2014. This application included a small section of the front of the existing dwelling being removed to allow for a indented bay and hence a carspace of 5.50m long was able to be provided (See Engineers report for DA/417/2014). This is now indicated on the elevation drawings received on 18th August 2015 and are satisfactory.

 

Development Engineering have no further issues with the proposal provided a condition be placed in the consent stating the carspace is to be constructed in accordance with the requirements of DA consent 417/2014 prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

Undergrounding of power lines to site

At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27th May 2014 it was resolved that;

 

Should a mains power distribution pole be located on the same side of the street  and within 15m of the development site, the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site via an underground UGOH connection.

 

The subject site is located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is applicable. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Landscape Comments

While the large and mature Tuckeroo located in the front yard, in the northeast corner of the site, has already been given consent to be removed as part of a previous approval for a hardstand car space (DA/417/2014), as it still physically remains on-site, conditions also need to be included in this report allowing its removal, given that the works proposed in this application will have a direct impact on this tree as well.

 

The inspection of 8 July 2015 revealed two established trees in the rear yard, being firstly, in the southwest corner, a mature, 10-12m tall Eucalyptus scoparia (Wallangarra White Gum) of poor health and condition, with numerous stubs/stumps remaining from poor past pruning, along with major sections of dieback and deadwood throughout its canopy, which seems to be a result of exposure to salt laden winds, which this species cannot tolerate given its origins in mountain ranges well clear of the coast.

 

This tree is seen to be in decline, with no prospects of recovery given a combination of its old age and its resulting inability to regenerate like a younger specimen; the extent of dieback/deadwood; and the general short life-span of the species; and for these reasons, no objections are raised to its removal in this case.

 

While not shown on the plans, to its north, right in the northwest corner of the site, there is a mature Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowood), which is the more dominant and hardy of these two trees, with its southern leader being about 6m in height, with the northern leader extending to a height of about 15m.

 

It is covered by the DCP, and was observed to perform a screening and amenity function for both occupants and surrounding neighbours; however, it is in fair health and only poor condition, as the two leaders are included or ‘fused’ just above ground level, which is identified as a structural fault that carries a much higher risk of failure than properly formed branches, and is an important consideration in this case given its pronounced canopy bias to the northwest, as the majority of its crown is held entirely above the rear private open space of 17 Battery Street, with considerable end weight being exerted on those branches at its northwest aspect.

 

While this tree does provide a habitat source for native fauna along the harsh coastal strip, it has not yet reached its full biological potential, and if it did attain mature size, would be twice as large as it is at the moment, which would only place further strain on the included leaders and its acute lean.

 

This also means that any works in the rear yard, to its south or east, will be performed on the tensile side of its root plate, which is the area that is responsible for keeping the tree anchored and stable in the ground.

 

On the basis of the points and factors discussed above, it would not possible to recommend its retention in this case as its stability and the future safety of person and property cannot be guaranteed, with consent reluctantly granted for its removal.

 

In recognition of the impact its loss would have on the visual and environmental amenity of the immediate area, conditions specifically require that an advanced replacement native coastal be planted in its place in this same area of the site, selecting a species which will attain dimensions at maturity which are more suitable for the small space that is available.

 

Despite the Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palm) just to the east of the tree described only being small, at about 3m, it is still covered by the provisions of the DCP; however, it could not be retained given the works that are proposed in this same area, being changes to existing ground levels and new boundary retaining walls/planters, all so as to provide a level, more usable courtyard, and while it is a desirable feature species, it is not significant in anyway, so can be removed as shown.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/220/2015 for alterations, first and second floor additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling including new boundary fence and solar panels on roof at 14 Mundarrah Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The following window must have a minimum sill height of  1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height:

 

·          South facing ground level sunroom window (W02)

·          South facing stair well window (W12)

 

b.     The green roof (second floor) area shall be subject to the following:

 

·          Be non-trafficable and accessible for maintenance purposes only

·          Balustrade along the southern side of the roof shall be removed and anchor points installed for the purposes of safe maintenance

·          Planting shall consist of only low level and low maintenance species

 

c.     The side boundary fence between the subject site and the neighbouring dwelling at No. 12 Mundarrah Street shall not exceed the height of existing side boundary fencing. This condition has been included in order to limit the height of side boundary fencing between the subject site and the adjoining property to the north.

 

d.     Solar panels located on the roof shall be installed flush with the roof

 

e.     No approval is granted for air-conditioning equipment

 

f.      Northern and rear boundary fencing is limited to a maximum of 1800mm above existing ground level. An allowance of 150mm is permitted for differences in ground level between the subject site and adjoining properties.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

 

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

 

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

 

4.     Development consent issued under DA/417/2014 must be surrendered to Council in accordance with the requirements under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act and its regulations.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Mundarrah Street, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D89/15

 

Subject:                  756 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/424/2015)

Folder No:               DA/424/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing structures and construction of two storey boarding house with 9 boarding rooms with car parking area at the rear of the site (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Edifice Design

Owner:                    Mr. Y Chandra and Mrs. H Chandra

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview33332.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 request of Councillors Bowen, Garcia and Neilson.


 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house with 9 boarding rooms and car parking area located at the rear of the site. (Variation to floor space ratio control).

 

The proposed design scheme includes the following:

 

Ground floor level:

·      4 boarding rooms at the ground floor level (2 x 2 lodger rooms and 2 x 1 lodger rooms)

·      Internal communal living room area located on the north-eastern corner of the subject site and communal open space adjacent to the northern boundary.

·      Vehicular parking access at the south-eastern corner of the site with access from Moverley Road with 2 car parking spaces, 3 motorcycle spaces and 3 bicycle spaces.

 

First floor level:

·      5 boarding rooms at the first floor level (3 x 2 lodger rooms and 2 x 1 lodger rooms)

Attic floor level:

·      3 loft storage rooms with an area of approximately 8-9sqm located with the roof space of the boarding house.

 

 

 Figure 1: The subject site at 756 Anzac Parade, Maroubra as viewed from the south

Figure 2: The neighbouring semi-detached dwelling to the west at no. 32 and 34 Benvenue

Figure 3: The subject site and the adjoining two storey residential flat building at no. 754 Anzac Parade

Figure 4: Lycee Condorcet – The French School of Sydney on the opposite side of Moverly Road at no. 758 Anzac Parade

 

Site

The subject site is known as 756 Anzac Parade, Maroubra and formally described as Lot 2988 DP752015. The subject site is an irregular shaped allotment with the longest boundary abutting the rear adjoining neighbour between nos. 28, 30 and 34 Benvenue Street at the rear of the dwelling. The subject site is a corner allotment located on the intersection of Anzac Parade and Moverley Road. The subject site dimensions comprise of a northern (side) boundary of 37.09 metres, an eastern (rear) boundary of 22.58 metres, southern (Moverly Road) boundary of 36.56 metres and a frontage width (Anzac Parade) of 10.67 metres. The subject site has a site area of 576.2sqm. 

 

Neighbouring to the north is an existing two storey residential flat building, to the rear is an existing single storey semi-detached dwelling and further south beyond Moverly Road is the Lycee Condorcet – The French School of Sydney. The subject site is characterized by a minimal fall of approximately 600mm from east to west and the immediate locality consists of low residential density comprising of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses. The direct northern neighbour with a residential flat building currently operates under existing use rights.

 

History

The applicant submitted amended plans on the 21 September 2015 to include the following:

·      Deletion of two boarding rooms located on the eastern side of the subject site at the first floor level.

·      Reduction to the gross floor area from 397sqm (0.69:1) to 313.71sqm with a FSR of 0.54:1.

·      Deletion of the first floor balcony to the south-eastern corner of the dwelling.

 

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)

0.5:1

0.54:1

No*

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5 metres

8.4 metres

Yes

*see exception to development standard below

 

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

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio development standard contained in clause 4.4(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 gross floor area

313.71sqm (0.54:1)

Maximum permissible gross floor area

288.1sqm (0.5:1)

FSR exceeding LEP control

25.61sqm (9%)

 


 

 

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 floor space ratio buildings standard are set out in clause 4.4 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

a)     To ensure that development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring land in terms of visual privacy, overshadowing and views

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 buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs,

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


 

 

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 Floor Space Ratio 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 development will establish a suitable scale to the streetscape and the building design appropriately responds to the site characteristics and the adjoining developments. The slight increase to the additional floor area above the maximum floor space ratio development standards is considered imperceptible given the form and massing of the development is commensurate to the built form of the single and two storey developments. The development maintains the established character of the low density residential development and does not detract from the appearance of the streetscape.

 

·      The proposed increase to the gross floor area does not give rise to an excessive size and scale of the development given the attic level is contained mostly within the low profile skillion roof form and will be of a lower building height than the northern neighbour of the existing two storey residential flat building with a RL36.40. The form and massing of the development will remain consistent with the existing dwellings along both frontages of Anzac Parade and Moverly Road. 

 

·      The proposed building envelope is appropriately setback and provides setbacks from the neighbouring dwellings

 

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

 

Assessment:

The visual presentation of the front façade of the dwelling house is appropriately articulated and the building mass is not considered to be excessive in size and scale. The front façade adopts a number of articulation measures to relieve the visual mass including a combination of materials and finishes, staggered wall planes and contributory façade features. The level of articulation across the length of the dwelling and the combination of lightweight materials with the face brick and cement render provides a human scale to the streetscape presentation. The proposal will not contribute to any significant adverse impacts on the environmental or energy needs of the neighbouring properties.   

 

c)     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.

 

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

 

Assessment:

The non-compliance to the maximum floor space ratio 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 form and massing of the development is also acceptable given the development generally complies with the objectives for external wall heights 

 

·      The subject site is located on the southern end of the block and subsequently will not result in any significant overshadowing to the north-facing windows and private open spaces of the neighbouring dwellings. During the morning periods between 8am – 12pm most of the additional overshadowing will fall on the intersection of Anzac Parade and Moverly Road and between 12pm to 4pm the shadowing will fall mostly on Moverly Road. The western neighbours at no. 30 and 34 Benvenue Street will be impacted during the hours of 3pm to 4pm only with shadowing falling on the south-western corner of no. 30 Benvenue Street and the west facing ground floor windows of no. 34 Benvenue Street reduced at 4pm only. The adjoining dwellings will maintain the required three hours of direct solar access and will continue to comply with the controls for solar access and overshadowing as prescribed by Clause 5.1: Solar Access and Overshadowing of the RDCP2013.

 

·      The proposal will not result in any significant visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. To minimise opportunities of direct overlooking from the first floor north facing windows a condition of consent has been included that the window openings W16, W18, W19 and W20 windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height. With regards to the eastern aspect, the amended plans delete the two eastern most first floor boarding rooms which results in a significant separation distance to the private open space of in excess of 12.7 metres to the rear boundary and 20.768 metres to the habitable room windows of no. 28 and 30 Benvenue Street. A similar outlook separation to no. 34 Benvenue is evident and an existing garage structure located up to the eastern boundary will screen possible overlooking. The proposal is acceptable in complying with the objectives of Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy of the RDCP2013.

 

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

 

2.     Consistency with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone 

 

        Objectives of 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 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.

 

Assessment:

The proposed boarding house development will remain in keeping with the zoning objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential. The design scheme will remain sympathetic with the existing two storey developments along Anzac Parade and Moverly Road and the scale of the development reflects one that is similar to a typical detached dwelling house. The marginal non-compliance of approximately 25sqm is considered to be imperceptible from the streetscape given the development is adequately setback from the neighbouring dwellings and the siting and design of the development carefully considers its position as a corner allotment. The breach to the maximum permissible floor space ratio does not give rise to any adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and is acceptable in providing a reasonable level of amenity with regards to visual privacy, overshadowing and views. Furthermore, the proposed boarding house will continue to meet the housing needs of the community through providing for affordable housing and social inclusion within established communities with access to essential services. It serves the broader community interest to provide for a spectrum of housing choice that promotes an integrated and inclusive community. The development encourages housing affordability by offering housing alternatives within the immediate locality satisfies the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone.

 

3.     Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment:

The proposed boarding house seeks development consent under the State Environmental Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009. Subsequently any new development is required to comply with Clause 26- 30A of the SEPP ARH2009. The proposal will comply with the relevant provisions of the SEPP ARH2009


4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment: The design scheme maintains a two storey scale and will comfortably fit within the subject allotment. The additional floor area does not form a detracting feature compromising the streetscape character and the development will continue to comply with the building envelope controls with regards to appropriate setbacks, building height and areas to provide adequate landscaping. As prescribed above, the variation to the floor space ratio 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 FSR variation:

 

·      The proposal will be slightly increasing the floor space ratio on the site to 0.54:1. It is considered that the minor shortfall of approximately 25sqm will not contribute to any unreasonable loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties and will not significantly contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development.

 

·      The proposed floor space ratio of 0.54:1 is acceptable and represents a reduced building envelope than other forms of typical permissible uses including ‘dwelling houses’ and ‘semi-detached dwellings’ with a maximum permissible gross floor area of 0.65:1. The development represents a use of a more commiserate built form which is reflective of a two storey dwelling house.

 

·      The proposed built form has incorporated staggered wall planes, balconies, window openings, screening devices and a combination of materials and finishes, which will appropriately articulate the external facades. The above design measures will minimise the visual scale and bulk of the structures, despite non-compliance with the floor space ratio provisions.

 

·      The development scheme complies in providing appropriate landscaped and deep landscaped areas within the front, side and rear setbacks which will soften the appearance of the dwelling house within the streetscape.

 

·      The proposed boarding house will comply with the relevant building envelope controls in that the side setbacks are above the minimum requirements of 1.5 metres with a side setback of 3.08 metres from the northern boundary and between 2.1 metres to 3 metres from the southern boundary. With regards to the rear setback, the RDCP2013 controls permit for reduced rear setbacks for irregular shaped allotments and the rear setback at 6 metres is acceptable. The first floor level has been amended to delete the eastern most boarding rooms to maintain a similar rear building alignment at the first floor level as the existing urban block pattern. The encroachment at the ground floor level at the south-eastern corner is acceptable given it does not contribute to any adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

·      The development includes a low profile hipped roof form across the length of the building and falls to the Moverly Road frontage. The roof form is acceptable in that it reduces the apparent visual bulk and scale of the development from the existing streetscape.

 

·      The non-compliance of the 25qm is imperceptible in the overall design scheme of the development and will not result in any adverse environmental impacts to the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings including overshadowing, visual privacy and view sharing from the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

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 floor space ratio in clause 4.4 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical 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.

 

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.

 

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 during exhibition of the notification process between the dates of 29 June to the 14 July 2015. The proposal was re-notified on the 14 October to 28 October.

 

The following submissions were received:

 

·      1/742 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      2/742 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      748 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      752 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      758 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (Lycee Condorcet – The French School of Sydney) 

·      22 Benvenue Street, Maroubra

·      28 Benvenue Street, Maroubra

·      32 Benvenue Street, Maroubra

·      34 Benvenue Street, Maroubra 

 

In addition to the above, 1 petition was submitted with 26 signatures and 2 submissions were received with no addresses provided. A submission was also received from the French Consul General in support of the concerns raised by the French school.

 

·      The proposal will result in significant breach to the maximum permissible floor space ratio.

 

Noted. The applicant has submitted amended plans deleting two boarding rooms from the first floor eastern portion of the dwelling. The amended proposal will result in a reduction to the gross floor area to 313.71sqm with an FSR of 0.54:1. The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards to vary the minor departure to the maximum permissible gross floor area as shown on the amended plans. Refer to Key Issues and Areas of Non-Compliance for further details. 

 

·      The residents of the boarding house will pose a threat to children and the community, in particular its location immediately adjacent the Lycee Condorcet.

 

Affordable housing is vital element for sustaining a functioning city. It provides much needed housing for Key workers that need to service our City. It allows for social inclusion within established communities with good access to essential services and employment opportunities. There is no evidence to support the claim that residents of low to moderate incomes would pose a threat to the local community.

 

·      The proposed boarding house accommodation should be refused on the basis that it is uncharacteristic within the local community.

 

In Boarding houses provide another form of having in a residential area accordance with Clause 26 and 27 of the State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing 2009, Boarding Houses are permissible within an R2: Low Density Residential Housing Zone should it be located within an accessible area and be located within 400m within a B2 Local Centre. The subject site is located within an accessible area given it is located within 60m walking distance to a bus stop used by a regular bus service between the hours of 6am – 9pm, Monday to Friday and 8am – 6pm, Saturday and Sunday. In addition to this the subject site is located within 350m of a B2: Local Centre and therefore the proposal is a permissible form of development within the R2: Low Density Residential Zone. Notwithstanding the above, the development is considered to be in keeping with the character of the local area in terms of its built form.

 

·      The proposal will compromise the visual privacy to the neighbouring dwellings at the rear at no. 28, 30, 32 and 34 Benvenue Street and the neighbours directly to the north.

 

Visual Privacy impacts are acceptable. Refer to Key Issues Section for further details.

 

·      The proposed boarding house will contribute to excessive noise impacts in particular given the location of the schools within the immediate locality.

 

The use of premises is for accommodation and consistent with the zoning of land. Boarding houses are a form of residential accommodation that will not contribute to any significant noise impacts that would be uncharacteristic of a residential environment. Notwithstanding, the development application includes the submission of an acoustic report which has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Health Officer. No objections have been received given the noise intrusion impact from the traffic and recommended noise reduction methods are appropriate to ensure that the development complies with the relevant noise criteria. In addition to the above, the submitted plan of management restricts the use of the outdoor communal area from 8am – 10pm which will minimise noise impacts to the immediately adjacent neighbours.

 

·      The proposal will result in safety issues in cars entering and exiting the assigned car spaces.

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the application and advised that the proposed parking layout will comply with the minimum requirements of the Australian Standards 2890.1:2004. Further the proposal provides for adequate sightlines of oncoming vehicular traffic and pedestrians in entering and existing the assigned car spaces given the vehicular driveway is setback between 3 metres and 5.5 metres from Moverley Road. The development is not expected to result in any adverse traffic impacts to the neighbouring dwellings given the nominal number of cars and motorcycles that the proposed development services.

 

·      The proposal provides for two car spaces only and will result in a reduction in the availability of on-street parking.

 

The proposed development will comply with the minimum parking requirements with two hardstand parking spaces provided. The subject site provides for 9 boarding rooms and at a rate of 0.2 parking spaces, 1.8 parking spaces are required. The development provides for two parking spaces and complies with the parking requirements within the SEPP for Affordable Rental Housing. In addition to this the development provides for 3 motorcycle parking spaces and 3 bicycle parking spaces. As prescribed by Clause 29(2) of the SEPP ARH2009, a consent authority cannot refuse development should it comply with the parking requirements.

 

·      The proposal does not constitute good urban design.

 

The proposal is acceptable in that the overall design scheme provides for an articulated façade which comprises of a number of recesses and modulations within the front elevation which breaks up the visual mass and length of the boarding house development. In addition to this, the development includes a number of heavy and light weight materials including face brick, cement render with an aluminum timber grain finish to the external walls and a colorbond metal roof sheeting and cladding which will further articulate the façade. The development is acceptable in providing quality urban design.

 

·      The boarding house is considered to be an intense use and will result in overcrowding.

 

The development is acceptable in complying with the minimum accommodation sizes as per Clause 29 of the SEPP for Affordable Rental Housing 2009. Furthermore, the proposal will comply with the RDCP2012 in providing the minimum area and size for indoor and outdoor communal open space within located on the northern side of the development. Amended plans have also been submitted which delete two boarding rooms from the submitted plans which will improve the spatial capacity of the boarding house in accommodating the number of lodgers. 

 

·      The recent building works carried out in close proximity to the army barracks will create further traffic and noise issues.

 

A condition of consent has been included that a construction site management plan be included prior to the commencement of any works with details to be provided on construction noise and vibration management and construction traffic management details.

 

·      The proposed short term accommodation will result in health related impacts due to the uncertainties of the adjoining residents.

 

The proposed development is not expected to give rise to health related impacts to the residents of neighbouring dwellings. Boarding houses provide for long term style accommodation.

 

·      The proposal will exceed the maximum permissible building height as prescribed within the RLEP2012.

 

The proposed development is 8.4 metres in height and will comply with the maximum 9.5 metre building height as per Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings of the RLEP2012.

 

·      The proposed boarding house does not provide adequate on-site management.

 

Clause 30(1)(e) of the SEPP ARH2009 specifies that if the boarding house has capacity to accommodate 20 or more lodgers, a boarding room or on site dwelling will be provided for a boarding house manager. The proposal provides for 14 lodgers and subsequently a boarding house manager is not required. With regards to on-site management, the submitted plan of management has been reviewed and is acceptable in the operation of the boarding house premises which details periods of stay, availability of management, safety and security, cleaning and maintenance and registering of complaints.

 

·      The proposal will contribute to adverse traffic impacts associated with the development.

 

The proposed development is not expected to result in adverse traffic impacts that is generated by the proposed development and complies with the parking requirements as prescribed within the SEPP ARH 2009.

 

·      The proposed plan of management does not provide any assurances that the procedures and administration will be followed.

 

The proposal includes a suitable condition of consent that the plan of management be approved as part of any consent.

 

·      The proposed plan of management does not address house rules, including party policies, noise control and address smoking and the consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs.

 

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the plan of management and it is satisfactory in monitoring the day-to-day operation of the premises and in minimising potential noise disturbances to the neighbouring dwellings. The submitted plan of management advises that no amplified music is permitted on the premises, smoking is permitted strictly to the communal outdoor area and on any private balconies and that use of the illicit drugs are prohibited from the premises. The submitted plan of management provides clear and suitable operational measures and practices in place for the ongoing management of the proposed boarding house.

 

·      The proposal does not constitute affordable housing.

 

The proposed development constitutes affordable housing in that the reduced boarding room sizes and the shared accommodation of the communal living spaces and outdoor spaces creates a more affordable housing option than other forms of residential accommodation.  

 

·      There is inadequate justification that boarding houses will have lower forms of car ownership or car dependence.

 

The provision for car parking is compliant with the provisions of SEPPARH. Under the provisions of the SEPP, where the minimum standard is met Council cannot use parking impacts as a means for refusal.  As noted above, the location of the site within an accessible area promotes the use of active and alternate modes of transport. In this regard the applicant has proposed to include additional bicycle parking which is considered an appropriate contextual response.

 

·      The proposal will result in the generation of additional rubbish within the immediate locality.

 

Adequate and accessible residential waste storage areas are provided at the ground floor level and will minimise littering to the neighbouring premises. Any littering that is to be occurred on site should be 

 

·      The proposal will reduce the amount of direct solar access to the objectors premises.

 

Solar access and overshadowing impacts are acceptable. Refer to Key Issues and Areas of Non-Compliance for further details.

 

·      The proposed eastern setback of 6 metres is unacceptable given that it results in significant privacy impacts and provides little opportunity to provide screen planting at the rear of the subject site.

 

The existing rear boundary fence will provide adequate privacy screening to the rear neighbours at no. 28, 30, 32 and 34 Benvenue Street. Notwithstanding this, the development provides a 1 metre setback between the concrete paved area and the rear boundary fence which is suitable in width to provide a screen planting adjacent to the eastern boundary. It is also expected that the designated communal open space area adjacent to the northern boundary will be utilized rather than the vehicular access and is setback significantly from the eastern boundary.

 

·      The proposed amendments should be re-notified given it constitutes an additional impact given the location of the east facing window openings.

 

The amended plans have been re-notified and the adjoining neighbours have been provided an opportunity to provide a further submission to the development.

 

·      The proposed boarding house will impact on property values.

 

Property devaluation is not a matter of consideration under section 79C and therefore cannot be considered or used as a means of restricting development of land.

 

Assessment of Clause 30A- Character of the local area

 

Character of the local area

The consent authority is required to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

Context:

The subject site dimensions comprise of a northern (side) boundary of 37.09 metres, an eastern (rear) boundary of 22.58 metres, southern (Moverly Road) boundary of 36.56 metres and a frontage width (Anzac Parade) of 10.67 metres. The subject site has a site area of 576.2sqm. 

 

To the north the subject site the predominant built form pattern is characterized by single and two storey dwelling houses and residential flat buildings (operating as existing use rights), to the east are existing single storey semi-detached dwelling houses along Moverly Road and to the south on the opposite side of Moverly Road is is the Lycee Condorcet – The French School of Sydney consisting of structures and single and two storey scales.     

 

The locality is occupied by a mix of residential and infrastructure type land uses of a built form and height comparable to and compatible with the proposed development.

 

The following image demonstrates the zoning context. The subject site is identified and marked as purple.

 

Zoning context

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview28772.png

 

  

Compatibility of built form:

When viewed from the Anzac Parade and Moverly Road intersection the proposed development will read as a two storey building with the attic floor level constructed within the roof form. The southern façade includes a number of staggered wall planes, balconies, window openings, screening devices and a combination of materials and finishes which results in a well-articulated and attractive built form. The proposed design scheme will maintain a similar building height as the adjacent buildings given the top most portion of the roof form (clerestory windows to the attic level) will remain of a lower building height than the pitching roof of the northern neighbour. The roof form incorporates a low profile skillion roof form which slopes from north to south and minimises the perceivable visual bulk and scale of the roof form from the streetscape. 

 

Initially, Council raised concerns that the proposed development in particular the first floor eastern portion of the dwelling, was excessive in size and scale and resulted in a breach to the predominant rear setback alignment of the adjacent buildings within the urban block. The applicant has since submitted amended plans deleting the two eastern most boarding rooms at the first floor level in order to achieve a more compatible rear building alignment to the adjacent buildings. The proposal is acceptable in complying with the building envelope controls within the C2: Low Density Residential controls of the RDCP2013 including site coverage, setbacks and building height. The development will result in a minor breach to the floor space provisions, however, this departure has been suitably justified as part of Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards.

 

Within this context, the proposed development is entirely compatible. Importantly, it is also noted that the proposed development will not isolate the properties at either 64 Barker Street or 1 Forsyth Street in terms of potential to accommodate future forms of permissible development.

 

Compatibility of use:

The proposed use of the site, which comprises a boarding house with 9 rooms and communal facilities, parking and landscaping constitutes a permissible form of development. Effective measures in relation to operation and management of the boarding house have been employed in a Plan of Management. These measures are recommended for enforcement by way of an appropriate condition of consent will ensure that the development results in sustainable amenity impacts to adjoining residents. The proposed development will provide contemporary affordable housing to the community in an ideal location in close proximity to the Maroubra Junction Town Centre, public transport, infrastructure facilities including the integrating effectively into the evolving character of the locality.

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Residential R2 zone;

The proposal is clearly consistent with the objectives of the zone, detailed as follows:

 

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed development will comply with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone and the appearance of the proposed development will be in harmony with the evolving nature of the streetscape.

 

The local character test is satisfied on this occasion.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013:

 

Part C2: Low Density Residential

Clause 5.1: Solar Access and Overshadowing

The Council controls require that any new development must continue to provide a minimum of three hours of direct solar access to the north-facing windows of the neighbouring dwellings. Most of the additional overshadowing between the hours of 8am – 4pm, 21 June will fall on Anzac Parade and Moverly Road. The proposed development will shadow the south-eastern corner of the private open space at no. 30 Benvenue Street and the private open space at no. 34 Benvenue Street at 4pm only. The proposal is acceptable in complying with the required three hours of direct solar access to the neighbouring dwellings and will comply with Clause 5.1: Solar Access and Overshadowing.  

 

Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy

The proposal will not result in any significant visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. To minimise opportunities of direct overlooking from the first floor north facing windows a condition of consent has been included that the first floor window openings W16, W18, W19 and W20 windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height. With regards to the eastern aspect, the amended plans delete the two eastern most first floor boarding rooms which results in a significant separation distance to the private open space of in excess of 12.7 metres to the rear boundary and 20.768 metres to the habitable room windows of no. 28 and 30 Benvenue Street. A similar outlook separation to no. 34 Benvenue is evident and an existing garage structure located up to the eastern boundary will screen possible overlooking. The proposal will comply with the objectives for visual privacy as per Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed boarding house development generally satisfies the requirements of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Council’s RLEP and RDCP controls. The proposal will not contribute to any unreasonable adverse impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and will generally remain in keeping with the character of the local area and the existing developments within the streetscape. The non-compliance with the FSR standards are considered to be well founded. The proposal will not result in any unreasonable impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk and scale, solar access and privacy.

 

 

 

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 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Floor Space Ratio, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above 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/424/2015 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a two storey boarding house with 9 boarding rooms and car parking area located at the rear of the site at No. 756 Anzac Parade, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report

 

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a.        The first floor north facing window openings W16, W18, W19 and W20 windows must have a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 756 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D90/15

 

Subject:                  166 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/332/2015)

Folder No:               DA/332/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing building including conversion of the existing commercial uses at first, second and third levels into residential uses additional 3 levels of residential apartments above comprising a total of 17 units, 2 retail shops and offices of ground floor level and basement parking for 11 vehicles.

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Sgammotta Architects

Owner:                    Welcome Homes Real Estate Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview35161.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

2 submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee Meeting as it is valued at $3.9m.


 

Proposal

 

The proposed development seeks to carry out alterations and additions to the existing building for commercial/retail premises at ground level and 17 residential units within six levels above.

 

·      Basement parking is existing containing 11 spaces

 

·      Ground level is existing and contains retail and commercial premises sought to be retained.

 

·      Levels 1 to 3 are existing commercial suites and sought to be converted into residential units.

 

·      Levels 4 to 6 are new levels comprising residential units. Level 6 is identified as habitable roof level.

 

 

Figure 1: Streetscape elevation subject site is located in the middle.

 

Application history

 

Amended plans were received by Council on 29 September 2015 replacing the balustrade at Level 6 with an extension to the framing around level 5. This amendment provides a stronger more defined street edge reducing clutter in transitioning from Level 5 to Level 6 above.

 

The applicant submitted a structural report in response to Design Review Panel comments suggesting greater use of voids in order to improve light permeating into units at the front of the development and at the upper levels at the rear. The report indicates in brief that the originally proposed voids at the front facing Maroubra Road are unable to be retained as part of the amended scheme as they compromise the structural integrity of the development as a whole. Further the existing levels (1 to 3) at the rear are unable to accommodate voids due to similar structural integrity concerns with cutting slabs at these levels. The report submitted as additional details states that accommodating cut outs in this section will compromise the structural integrity of the existing building and support of levels above. Sketch details provided by the applicant as well as correspondence from industry experts suggest that the light through the solatube mechanism inclusive of glass block will provide sufficient diffused light to enter corridors and the foyer.

 

The balconies facing Maroubra Road at Levels 1 to 3 are now extended across the full width of the site ensuring consistency with the full width balconies on levels 2, 4, & 5.

 

Level 6 balcony and common open space is now located further forward as a result of the extended framing around level 5. This is generally acceptable however in order to maintain a consistent setback from Maroubra Road a condition is included requiring a planter box be located along the southern end of the Level 6 balcony ensuring the trafficable area is a minimum of 2080mm from the front boundary.

 

Site history

 

Consent for a three (3) storey mixed commercial and residential building was granted to Development Application No. 201/1987 on 13 August, 1987.  Subsequently, on 16 December, 1987, consent was granted to Development Application No. 352/1987 for the existing commercial building described as a “five” storey building (4 levels over basement car park), with the related building application (BA 1397/1987) approved on 19 January, 1989.  It is noted that this development was approved subject to payment of S94 contributions to offset the shortfall in parking. This effectively means that the development enjoys credit of 24 parking spaces.

 

There have been various applications since for change of use, shop fit-outs, etc.

 

Approval was granted for alterations and additions to the existing four (4) storey mixed retail and commercial building and its conversion into a six (6) storey mixed use retail, commercial and residential building under DA/1093/2004.  The approval provided two (2) shops on the ground floor level, three (3) commercial suites on Level 1 and 12 residential apartments over Levels 1-5.  The residential apartments consist of one (1) studio, six (6) x one bedroom units and five (5) x two bedroom units (two of which include a study). This consent was not taken up.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Maroubra Road, between Anzac Parade and Garden Street  in Maroubra Junction (refer Aerial photo above) and is identified as Lot A in DP 313701.  The site is fairly regular in shape, with a frontage of 17.68m to Maroubra Road, a northern boundary length of 17.68m, a western side boundary depth of 26.255m and an eastern boundary depth of 26.22m.  The site has a total area of 463.7m2 approximately.

 

 

Photo 1: subject site and neighbouring properties.

 

The site has a slight cross fall of 240mm across its Maroubra Road frontage (north to south).  Existing on the site is a four storey commercial building, with a basement parking level (refer Photo 1).

 

The building contains commercial office suites and retail shops at the ground floor level and has a total gross floor area of approximately 1100m2.  A driveway is located off Maroubra Road on the eastern side of the site and provides access to the basement carpark, which has provision for the parking of 11 cars. Ground level contains 2 retail shops fronting Maroubra Road and 2 commercial tenancies at the rear. First floor level contains commercial suites with rear open terraces. Second and third floor levels contain commercial suites with terraces facing south towards Maroubra Road.

 

Located on the adjoining site to the west and the north is (No. 892-906 Anzac Parade and 5-17 Green  Street) a multi-storey mixed retail, commercial and residential development with its south western corner identified as Dudley’s Corner.  Adjoining to the east are two storey commercial buildings.  Located on the opposite side of Maroubra Road are commercial buildings with a multi storey development under construction located on the south-eastern corner of Anzac Parade and Maroubra Road.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      Strata Plan 5-17 Green Street, Maroubra

·      Unit 59A/5-17 Green Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

 

·      The applicant is relying on a 1987 approval with regard to applying on the basis of alterations and additions especially in relation to parking which had a different environment and doesn’t comply with the current controls

 

Comment: The proposed development is permissible development. Consideration of the site and application history is a relevant consideration in the assessment of the application. Notwithstanding, the RDCP 2013 makes provisions for assessment of applications that seek to carry out alterations and additions to existing buildings other than new developments. An assessment of the proposed development against the relevant objectives and urban strategy for Maroubra Junction Centre has been carried out with the key issues identified in this summary report.

 

Whilst the proposed development does not meet the relevant controls for number of storeys and building depth it is nonetheless considered suitable for the site in so far as it does not result in any significant variation to the existing built form over the existing four storeys, the additional storeys will largely be compatible with the height and form envisaged by the RDCP.

 

Having regard to parking, the site enjoys parking credits by virtue of the approval and construction in 1987 which will readily absorb the numerical shortfall in parking associated with this application. In this respect and in accordance with Council policy, the proposed development is effectively an adaptive reuse of the existing building which must take into consideration the parking credits in the assessment of the application. See discussion on parking under the Key issues section of this report and Development engineering comments.

 

In terms of amenity, the proposed development provides for sufficient separation between neighbouring dwellings and will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts on the amenity of these neighbouring properties.

 

Issue:

 

·      The proposal is an overdevelopment on the site in combination with the lack of parking, noncompliance with GFA and setback codes it will result in inconsistent with the adjoining heritage item façade and should be reduced in scale

 

Comment: The proposed development complies with the setback controls; it does not comply with the parking requirements, GFA controls. Despite this the proposed development as amended by increasing the awning height, and altered framing around the Level 5 assist with integrating the horizontal elements of the development with that of the adjoining development to the west at Dudley’s corner. The proposed development as viewed from street level will not dominate or detract from the significance of the heritage item.

 

Issue:

 

·      Traffic impact and parking: The shortfall in parking for commercial purposes in 1987 was acceptable back then due to the lower density however the higher density residential environment. Where will the new residents park. Experience is that one site visitor spaces are abused by residents/tenants or there will be an increased demand for on street parking and greater demand for the Green Street parking station which is already congested.

 

Comment: The shortfall in parking is an existing situation and the nature of the development for alterations and additions does not alter this shortfall by any significant amount. As the number of parking spaces is not changing the traffic is unlikely to increase substantially to or from the site.

 

Issue:

 

·      Loss of privacy: The proposed rear units will look directly into the rear apartments within 5-17 Green Street. The proposed roof top component will also look into the buildings to the north and east.

 

Comment: There is considered to be adequate separation between communal open space and the rear of the proposed development with the rear balconies and window lines of apartments within No. 5-17 Green Street. See Key Issues Section.

 

Issue:

 

·      The proposed development exceeds Council building envelope requirements and should be reduced to comply.

 

Comment: The proposed developments height complies with the RDCP and RLEP controls and standards. In relation to building envelope and depth it is considered that the distribution of floor area will satisfy the urban strategy for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre and will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Issue:

 

·      Storage: The proposal does not contain sufficient storage for each unit.

 

Comment: Each unit is of a sufficient area that it is able to provide for storage space in line with the RDCP controls under Section 4.4.1 Apartment layout.

 

Issue:

 

·      Servicing: The proposal means more bins on site resulting in a traffic hazard when placed on street for collection. It is requested that Council require garbage removal be conducted on site.

 

Comment: Additional bins will be provided on site and will be placed on the pavement for collection. This scenario is no different to the scenario that exists within the wider LGA. Notwithstanding, the applicant is required to provide details of its waste management plan to Council’s for approval.

 

Issue:

 

·      Water discharge: Excess stormwater is currently discharged to the rear of 5-17 Green Street which is an enclosed area.

 

Comment: Discharge of water into the neighbouring properties is not permitted and suitable conditions are included.

 

Issue: Landscaping, open space and amenity

 

Comment: The nature of the development for alterations and additions to a building that predominately takes up the whole of the site at basement and ground level precludes any additional landscaping being provided on site. Notwithstanding, the proposal includes planter boxes throughout the development that will assist with both improving privacy protection and also softening the appearance of the development when viewed from the public domain and from neighbouring properties.

 

Issue:

 

·      Impact on adjoining heritage façade

 

Comment: The amended design incorporating a raised awning aligns with the awning and first floor level within the heritage item adjacent. This achieves a consistency in the horizontal elements of the buildings ensuring a reasonable level of continuity without replication. Further the reframed top level balustrade into the Level 5 façade also ties in with development further east along Maroubra Road.

 

Key Issues

 

Parking and Access

 

The proposal retains the existing basement car park and the 11 spaces.  The requirements for parking and bicycle provision for the proposal has been calculated in accordance with Schedule 3 of Part B7 of the RDCP 2013.  The proposal has a deficit of 22 car parking spaces and does not provide any dedicated bicycle spaces. The bicycle spaces, however, may be accommodated within a basement storage room at the south western corner of the basement next to the arrestor pit.

 

The previous approval required contributions under Section 94 of the Act to be paid as a condition attached to the consent for a similar shortfall in parking approved under DA/352/1987 and as such a credit of 29 spaces could be applied to the site. These contributions have been paid. Notwithstanding, the applicant also contends that the shortfall is easily accommodated by the site as being located in close proximity to public transport services within the town centre and is therefore worthy of support. It is further noted that the proposed development has an existing shortfall in parking associated with the four levels of commercial and business uses and that there will be a net reduction in parking demand associated with the proposal and the predominant use for residential purposes.

 

In response to the applicant’s assertions, it is accepted that the site is constrained by retaining the existing structure and cannot provide the member of parking in accordance with the requirements of Part B7 of the RDCP. Moreover, the site enjoys parking credits by virtue of the approval and construction in 1987 which readily absorbs the numerical shortfall in parking associated with this application. In this respect and in accordance with Council policy, the proposed development is effectively an adaptive reuse of the existing building which must take into consideration the parking credits in the assessment of the application. The parking provided on site inclusive of the parking credits is therefore considered an acceptable outcome.

 

Notwithstanding, in terms of allocation, it is considered reasonable that as the main part of the development is seeking residential use and in order to reduce conflicting parking demand across the site and improve security that the basement parking be allocated for sole use of the residential component. Parking spaces shall be allocated for each two and three bedroom unit and the remaining to be allocated to the single bedroom apartments. This allocation will be consistent with Councils requirements that parking is ideally allocated to either a residential or commercial use to assist with security and manage conflicts between the uses. A condition is also included precluding the issuing of any future parking permits for occupants or owners of the building.

 

Building Envelope Plan

       

·      Number of storeys

 

The RDCP control limits the development of the site to a maximum of six (6) storeys to Maroubra Road. The proposed development seeks a seven (7) storey development to Maroubra Road and does not comply.

 

As the proposal seeks to redevelop the site in the form of alterations and additions rather than a new development, the RDCP 2013 allows for an assessment against Section 2.4 Urban Strategy of the RDCP 2013. The RDCP identifies that controls for these allotments, that is those that are not redeveloped as new, have not been reflected in the proposed envelope plans for each block and that if redevelopment of these sites does occur then controls consistent with controls for neighbouring allotments and the urban strategy proposed in section 2.4 of the RDCP will be used for consideration by Council.

 

Section 2.4 Urban Strategy in Part D4 of the RDCP 2013

 

Section 2.4 of the RDCP 2013 identifies an overall urban strategy for the Maroubra Junction Centre to develop a good quality mixed use precinct that facilitates a potential increase in residential density without compromising amenity.

 

The design strategy lays the foundation for a good long-term framework for the area, the aim of which is to deliver a highly desirable, quality urban neighbourhood. In this respect attention is paid to various characteristics such as the type of street in which the site is located and the way in which it relates to the neighbouring properties and the streets in which they site. In other words, much the same way as the building envelope controls have been designed in response to lot size, position within the centre, relationship to adjacent buildings (such as heritage items), the desired future character of the centre, and street pattern and width, an assessment against these factors is required.

 

The subject site fronts Maroubra Road which is identified as a cross street in the RDCP 2013. It adjoins to the west a corner lot identified as The Junction that is the sites located at the corner of the Anzac Parade (identified as the Main Street) and Maroubra Road (cross street).

 

In terms of size and scale, and its relationship with the development at the Junction, the applicable standards and controls for the subject site allow for an overall height of 25m to ensure that its size and scale along this cross street remains subservient to the larger size and scale of development along the main street and Junction which allows for an overall height of 28m under the RLEP 2012.

 

The proposed development has a height of 24.73m maximum which is below the applicable height control and will therefore remain subservient to the size and scale of the building constructed at the Junction at No. 892- 906 Anzac Parade. The proposed development also has a 20.2m height measured to the underside of the roof complying with the 21m maximum control under the RDCP 2013.

 

It is noted that the proposed development is able to achieve compliance with the height standard by providing lower floor to ceiling heights than those required for the ground and first floor level under the RDCP 2013. This is a consequence of retaining the existing building. The concern with a lower floor to ceiling height than the RDCP 2013 controls require is that the development will present disjointedly within the streetscape. In this instance the application has been amended to minimise such disjointedness by increasing the height of the awning above ground level so that it is generally consistent with the height of the awning to the west and the framing over level 5 (sixth storey) has been increased to give the impression of a six storey development across the front façade with Level 6 having a greater setback from the front elevation and in some respects considered to fall within the scope of habitable roof element.

 

Overall, it is considered that despite the proposed development exceeding the maximum number of stories it will achieve consistency with the desired future streetscape character satisfying the urban strategy requirements under the RDCP 2013.


 

 

·      Building Depth

 

The existing building on the subject site has a depth of 26.255m and does not comply with the Block 8 controls for this site under the RDCP 2013 that limits the overall depth of developments within block 8 to a maximum of 22m and 18m from glass line to glass line. The proposed development has the following depths:

 

·      Residential building depth between 16.6m and 20.39m as a maximum in some components;

·      Commercial glass-to-glass measurements exceed 24 metres as a maximum in some components. 

 

The proposed depth of the development from ground through to Level 3 is being retained except for a reduction in depth at ground level and at first floor level. The proposed additional upper floor levels from 4 to 6 are in full compliance. 

                                                                                   

The proposal across the existing building depth is considered satisfactory as it does not differ greatly from the existing building depth. Further, the proposal also articulates the northern and southern building facade by way of variations to building depths.  The proposal will also be compatible in bulk and scale of the development on the western side of the subject site at the Junction.

 

The proposed is considered to satisfy the objectives for building depth, with the majority of the new residential apartments having access to northern sun and cross ventilation.

 

·      Gross Floor Area (GFA)

 

The proposed developments GFA occupies more than 70% of the maximum building envelope for residential floors and more than 80% in the case of commercial / retail floors above the ground floor. The proposed residential component has a GFA of 88% of the 1287.6sqm maximum building envelope ((17.88m x 18m) x 3). The proposed commercial component has a GFA of 98% of the allowable 322sqm building envelope.

 

A merit assessment of the proposed GFA is therefore required against each component of the development.

 

·      Residential

 

The proposed residential component over levels 2 to 5 equates to 1139sqm, which is equivalent to 88% of the building envelope. An assessment is therefore required against the objectives for building envelope under this part of the RDCP which read as follows:

 

•      To define the bulk, height and scale of development throughout the centre.

•      To create a transition between the centre and the surrounding residential area.

 

The proposed GFA for the residential component although exceeding the maximum control, is largely a consequence of the proposal retaining the rear alignment of the building from ground and first floor up to levels 2 & 3. As such there is no additional built form over these levels as part of this application. In fact the proposed development distributes floor area and open elements such as balconies that face the street and rear reducing the appearance of bulk, height and scale when compared with the existing design.

 

The proposed development also provides sufficient separation between the rear of the building over these levels and the neighbouring property to the rear at No. 5-17 Green Street ensuring adequate amenity to the neighbouring properties.

 

It is also noted that the building depth of Levels 4 and 5 have a glass line to glass line that varies between 15.8m and 17.2m which readily complies with the 18m maximum depths in the Block 8 controls under Section 3.2.8 of the RDCP 2013.

 

·      Commercial

 

The floor space above ground level is residential and therefore this control is not able to be satisfied. However, in the interests of assessing the GFA of the envisaged maximum floor area over ground and first floor level the building depth controls allow for a total floor area of 322sqm and the proposal has a floor area of 318 at first floor level representing 98% of the allowable building envelope. For the same reasons outlined above, the proposed GFA at first floor level is considered acceptable having regard to the objectives under the RDCP 2013. In this respect, the depth is not dissimilar to the existing at both ground and first floor level. In fact, there are elements over these two levels with less size than that of the existing building depth such as the rear ground level courtyard; voids provided within the first floor rear balcony and removing the encroaching second floor balconies to be in line with the front boundary line along Maroubra Road.

 

·      Separation

 

An assessment of a building depth relevantly also requires an assessment of the separation of the development from habitable room and balconies to those on the neighbouring properties. The controls and objectives for Separation under Section 3.1.6, requires that for the first four storeys a separation of 12m between habitable rooms and balconies and for the storeys between 5 and 8 a separation of 18m applies. It is noted that the RDCP indicates that compliance with the separation controls also means compliance with the controls and objectives for rear setbacks (Section 3.1.9) and Visual and Acoustic privacy (Section 4.3.2).

 

The proposed development readily satisfies the separation controls providing the following approximate distances between the rear of the development at each level and the rear of the development at No. 5-17 Green Street:

 

•      Ground level = 15m

•      Level 1 = 17.6m

•      Level 2 & 3 = 18.8m

•      Level 4 = 19.7m

•      Level 5 = 21.6m

•      Level 6 = 22.2m

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

The applicant has provided reasonable planning arguments that the proposed additional storey and the distribution of floor area across the site although resulting in non-complying building depths and GFA, will nevertheless achieve a better good planning outcome especially when compared with the existing building depth and GFA on site. The scheme is reasonable in the context of the planning controls applicable to the site and desired urban strategy for the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

       

The variation to controls of the RDCP have been adequately justified in the Key Issues section of this report including that the proposals redistribution of the building floor area as a response to the existing conditions and circumstances on the site which will respond well to the streetscape, the adjoining heritage item at Dudley’s corner and neighbouring properties. In this respect, the proposal rectifies existing encroachment, provides greater depth and articulation within the built form facing Maroubra Road as well as adequate separation between the building and neighbouring property opposite to the rear at 5-17 Green Street.

 

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, 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. 332/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing building including conversion of the existing commercial uses at first, second and third levels into residential uses additional 3 levels of residential apartments above comprising a total of 17 units, 2 retail shops and offices of ground floor level and basement parking for 11 vehicles at No. 166 Maroubra Road Maroubra NSW 2035, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

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

 

a.      Privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the western side of the rear balconies of Unit 1 and Unit 12. The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screens may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.      A minimum 20% of dwellings in the development must be adaptable dwellings and designed and constructed to a minimum Class C Certification under AS 4299 Adaptable Housing.

 

Residential Parking Permits

c.      All prospective owners and tenants of the building must be notified that Council will not issue any residential parking permits to occupants/tenants of this development.  As a minimum a notice shall be placed in the foyer/common areas of the building advising tenants/occupiers that they are in a building which does not qualify for on-street resident parking permits.

 

d.      To ensure the trafficable area is a minimum of 2080mm from the front boundary, a 700mm wide planter box shall be installed along the full length of the southern end of the Level 6 balcony.   

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 166 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

  


Planning Committee                                                                                              1 December 2015

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M10/15

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy NO.1 (SEPP1) and clause 4.6 between 1 October to 18 November 2015

Folder No:               F2008/00122

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 01 October 2015 to 18 November 2015 – eleven (11) were approved during this period by Planning Committee Meeting, Ordinary Council Meeting, and under Delegation.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:     New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Clause 4.6 - November 2015 (attachment)

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 - November 2015 (attachment)

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 OCTOBER AND 18 NOVEMBER 2015

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb Town

Post code

Category of development

Environmental plan-ning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
 

Authority

DA/219/2015

 

4

285944

 

6

Lister Avenue

LITTLE BAY

2036

 2: Residential - Single new dwelling

RLEP 2012

R1 - General Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views. 

FSR is 0.512:1, 2.3% above FSR standards

NSW Dept of Planning

27-Oct-15

OCM

DA/491/2015

 

49

70466

B05

102-106

Brook Street

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density
 Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 12m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height is 14.525m which is in excess of 21%,

Existing building height is 14.525m

NSW Dept of Planning

27-Oct-15

OCM

DA/558/2015

 

2277

752015

 

18-20

Cobham

MAROUBRA

2035

 7: Residential - Other

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.1(3)  minimum allotment size = 400sqm

Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predominant subdivision pattern. Site contains existing pair of semi-detached dwellings

Lot 1: 24.8% or  99.23 m2 shortfall, and

 Lot 2: 1.8%  or 87.42m2 shortfall

NSW Dept of Planning

27-Oct-15

OCM

DA/138/2015