Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 9 February 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

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, 9 February 2016 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 - 1 December 2015

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

 

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

D1/16       11 Bond Street, Maroubra (DA/535/2015) - Deferred............. 1

D2/16       Unit 1/99 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/665/2015).............. 27

D3/16       38 Canberra Street, Randwick (DA/538/2015)...................... 43

D4/16       267 Rainbow Street, South Coogee (DA/544/2015).............. 63

D5/16       327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/396/2015/A)....................... 67

D6/16       140 Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/132/2014/B)................ 79

D7/16       25 Jersey Road, Matraville (DA/643/2015)........................... 87

D8/16       2 Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay (DA/717/2015).................. 99

D9/16       19 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/739/2015)........................... 105

D10/16     41 Pozieres Avenue, Matraville (DA/800/2015)................... 111

D11/16     11 Liguria Street Maroubra (DA/514/2006/D)..................... 117

D12/16     359 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/753/2015).................... 123

D13/16     Shop 299/116-132 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/433/2011/A)...................................................................................... 133

D14/16     5 Clisby Way, Matraville - DA/563/2015............................. 139

D15/16     1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/D)................ 149

D16/16     JRPP - 57-63 St Pauls Street, Randwick (DA/493/2012/B)... 155

Miscellaneous Report (record of voting NOT required)

M1/16       Crime Prevention and the Assessment of Development Applications..................................................................... 195    

Notice of Rescission Motion (record of voting required)

NR1/16     Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Andrews, Matson and Shurey - 70 Dudley Street, Coogee (DA/803/2014)............. 203  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D1/16

 

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

Folder No:               DA/535/2015

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

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

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mr A Elski

Owner:                    Mr A T Gruszka

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

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

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Introduction

 

The subject development application No 535/2015 seeking consent for the construction a new part two storey and part three storey pair of semi-detached dwelling houses at the above address was referred to the Planning Committee on 1 December 2015 for determination at the request Councilors Andrews, Stavrinos and Nash. At the meeting it was resolved that:

 

“(Roberts/Andrews) the application be deferred for mediation.”

 

The mediation session was held on 13 January 2016 at Council’s administration building.

 

Issues

 

The Mediator has advised Council that the parties were able to resolve the issues in dispute and have reached the following agreement:

 

·      That the applicant agrees to reduce total height front section by 400mm.

·      Rear building side 11A and 11B both sides to be reduced by 300mm.

·      The owner of No. 14 Bellevue Street withdrew their objection as well the owners of 7-9 Bond Street.

·      The owners of units 3 and 4 of No. 4 Bond Street and owners of 15 Bond Street also withdrew their objection.

·      The applicant will provide fixed privacy screen to bedroom 1 on 11B eastern window.

 

The Applicant subsequently amended the plans to incorporate the changes above. The plans were also amended to include the recommended changes to the rear of the building that were included as conditions of consent in the original assessment report as well as a number of other requirements that were contained in “Condition 2 Amended plans.”

 

The Applicant has also provided additional information in support of the proposed subdivision and the non-compliance with the minimum frontage requirements of the RDCP 2013. 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 would have a frontage width of 7.62m for each lot.  An analysis of frontage widths has been provided that indicates that there are varied frontages in the broader locality of the subject site and within the associated R2 zone.  The frontage width would be characteristic of many of the semi-detached dwellings and consistent with the pattern of development in the locality. I note also that the proposal meets the minimum lot size standard in Council’s RLEP 2012 and will have adequate width and configuration to allow for suitably designed buildings that will provide good internal amenity and will not adversely affect the amenity of the neighbouring properties. As such, the condition restricting subdivision should be deleted from the consent.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As the agreement reached by the parties at the mediation lessens the impacts of the development on the neighbours and is appropriate in terms of its assessment against the relevant planning guidelines, it should be implemented through conditions of consent and the amended recommendation should be adopted by Council.

 

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 standard conditions contained to this report:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Sheet 1of 7 to 7 of 7 (Issue F)

Architects Ink

19/01/2016

25 January 2016

Colours, Materials and Finishes Schedule

Architects Ink

-

6 August 2015

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     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.

 

b.     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.

 

 

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

3.       The requirements and amendments detailed in the ‘General Conditions’ must be complied with and be included in the construction certificate plans and associated documentation.

Section 94A Development Contributions

4.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the development cost of $1,628,000 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $16,280.

 

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.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

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

 

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

 

Security Deposit

6.       The following damage / civil works security deposit requirement must be complied with as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; and as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

·           $2000.00   -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

 

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

 

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Design Alignment levels

7.       The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be as follows:

 

Western Driveway Entrance–    Western Edge RL 38.65 AHD

                                                     Eastern Edge RL 38.50 AHD

 

Pedestrian Gate Entrance Western Dwelling RL 38.35 AHD

 

Pedestrian Gate Entrance Eastern Dwelling RL 38.20AHD

 

Eastern Driveway Entrance –    Western Edge RL 38.05 AHD

        Eastern Edge RL 37.90 AHD

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineering Section have been issued at a prescribed fee of $792.00 calculated at $52.00 (inclusive of GST) per metre of site frontage. This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

Sydney Water

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Stormwater Drainage

9.       Stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of this development consent. Engineering calculations and plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum in relation to site drainage shall be prepared by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer and submitted to and approved by the certifying authority.  A copy of the engineering calculations and plans are to be forwarded to Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority. The drawings and details shall include the following information:

 

a)       A detailed drainage design supported by a catchment area plan, at a scale of 1:100 or as considered acceptable to the Council or an accredited certifier, and drainage calculations prepared in accordance with the Institution of Engineers publication, Australian Rainfall and Run-off, 1987 edition.

 

b)       A layout of the proposed drainage system including pipe sizes, type, grade, length, invert levels, etc., dimensions and types of all drainage pipes and the connection into Council's stormwater system. 

 

c)       The separate catchment areas within the site, draining to each collection point or surface pit are to be classified into the following categories:

 

i.        Roof areas

ii.       Paved areas

iii.       Grassed areas

iv.       Garden areas

 

d)       Where buildings abut higher buildings and their roofs are "flashed in" to the higher wall, the area contributing must be taken as:  the projected roof area of the lower building, plus one half of the area of the vertical wall abutting, for the purpose of determining the discharge from the lower roof.

 

e)       Proposed finished surface levels and grades of car parks, internal driveways and access aisles which are to be related to Council's design alignment levels.

 

f)       The details of any special features that will affect the drainage design eg. the nature of the soil in the site and/or the presence of rock etc.

 

10.     The site stormwater drainage system is to be provided in accordance with the following requirements;

 

a)     The stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and the conditions of this consent, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

b)     The stormwater must be discharged (by gravity) either:

 

i.      Council’s kerb and gutter directly in front of the subject site in Bond Street; or

 

ii.     To a suitably designed infiltration system (subject to confirmation in a geotechnical investigation that the ground conditions are suitable for the infiltration system),

 

Pump-out systems may be permitted but must be provided with two pumps connected in parallel (with each pump being capable of discharging at the required discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well is required to be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working. All pump-out water must pass through a stilling pit prior to being discharged by gravity to the kerb and gutter

 

Pump-out systems must be designed by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer and the pump-out system designed and constructed generally in accordance with Council's Stormwater Code.

 

c)     Should stormwater be discharged to Council’s drainage system, an on-site stormwater detention system must be provided to ensure that the maximum discharge from the site does not exceed that which would occur during a 1 in 10 year storm of one hour duration for existing site conditions. All other stormwater run-off from the site for all storms up to the 1 in 20 year storm is to be retained on the site for gradual release to the street drainage system, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

An overland escape route or overflow system (to Council’s street drainage system) must be provided for storms having an average recurrence interval of 100 years (1 in 100 year storm), or, alternatively the stormwater detention system is to be provided to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm.

 

d)     Should stormwater be discharged to an infiltration system, the infiltration area shall be  sized for all storm events up to the 1 in 20 year storm event with provision for a formal overland flow path to Council’s Street drainage system.

 

Should no formal overland escape route be provided for storms greater than the 1 in 20 design storm, the infiltration system shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year storm event.

 

e)     Determination of the required cumulative storage (in the on-site detention and/or infiltration system) must be calculated by the mass curve technique as detailed in Technical Note 1, Chapter 14 of the Australian Rainfall and Run-off Volume 1, 1987 Edition.

 

Where possible any detention tanks should have an open base to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. Infiltration should not be used if ground water and/or any rock stratum is within 2.0 metres of the base of the tank.

 

f)      Should a pump system be required to drain any portion of the site the system must be designed with a minimum of two pumps being installed, connected in parallel (with each pump capable of discharging at the permissible discharge rate) and connected to a control board so that each pump will operate alternatively. The pump wet well shall be sized for the 1 in 100 year, 2 hour storm assuming both pumps are not working.

 

The pump system must also be designed and installed strictly in accordance with Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

g)     Generally all internal pipelines must be capable of discharging a 1 in 20 year storm flow.  However the minimum pipe size for pipes that accept stormwater from a surface inlet pit must be 150mm diameter.  The site must be graded to direct any surplus run-off (i.e. above the 1 in 20 year storm) to the proposed drainage (detention/infiltration) system.

 

h)     A sediment/silt arrestor pit must be provided within the site near the street boundary prior to discharge of the stormwater to Council’s drainage system and prior to discharging the stormwater to any absorption/infiltration system.

 

Sediment/silt arrestor pits are to be constructed generally in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·          The base of the pit being located a minimum 300mm under the invert level of the outlet pipe.

·          The pit being constructed from cast in-situ concrete, precast concrete or double brick.

·          A minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (or equivalent) located in the walls of the pit at the floor level with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located over the weep holes.

·          A galvanised heavy-duty screen being provided over the outlet pipe/s (Mascot GMS multipurpose filter screen or equivalent).

·          The grate being a galvanised heavy-duty grate that has a provision for a child proof fastening system.

·          A child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system being provided for the access grate (e.g. spring loaded j-bolts or similar).

·          Provision of a sign adjacent to the pit stating, “This sediment/silt arrester pit shall be regularly inspected and cleaned”.

 

i)      The floor level of all habitable, retail, commercial and storage areas located adjacent to any detention and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage must be a minimum of 300mm above the maximum water level for the design storm or alternately a permanent 300mm high water proof barrier is to be provided.

 

j)      Infiltration systems/Absorption Trenches must be designed and constructed generally in accordance with Randwick City Council's Private Stormwater Code.

 

k)     The maximum depth of ponding in any above ground detention areas and/or infiltration systems with above ground storage shall be as follows (as applicable):

 

i.      150mm in uncovered open car parking areas (with an isolated maximum depth of 200mm permissible at the low point pit within the detention area)

ii.     300mm in landscaped areas (where child proof fencing is not provided around the outside of the detention area and sides slopes are steeper than 1 in 10)

iii.    600mm in landscaped areas where the side slopes of the detention area have a maximum grade of 1 in 10

iv.    1200mm in landscaped areas where a safety fence is provided around the outside of the detention area

v.     Above ground stormwater detention areas must be suitably signposted where required, warning people of the maximum flood level.

 

Note: Above ground storage of stormwater is not permitted within basement car parks or store rooms.

 

l)      A childproof and corrosion resistant fastening system shall be installed on access grates over pits/trenches where water is permitted to be temporarily stored.

 

m)    A ‘V’ drain (or equally effective provisions) are to be provided to the perimeter of the property, where necessary, to direct all stormwater to the detention/infiltration area.

 

n)     The site stormwater system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it operates as required by the design.

 

o)     Mulch or bark is not to be used in on-site detention areas.

 

p)     Seepage waters are required to be drained and disposed of within the site and are not to be drained into Council’s stormwater drainage system.

 

q)     Site discharge pipelines shall cross the verge at an angle no less than 45 degrees to the kerb line and must not encroach across a neighbouring property’s frontage unless approved in writing by Council’s Development Engineering Coordinator.

       

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

 

BASIX Requirements

12.     In accordance with section 80A(11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 97A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, the requirements and commitments contained in the relevant BASIX Certificate must be complied with.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate must be included on the construction certificate plans, specifications and associated documentation, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

The design of the building must not be inconsistent with the development consent and any proposed variations to the building to achieve the BASIX commitments may necessitate a new development consent or amendment to the existing consent to be obtained, prior to a construction certificate being issued.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

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

 

Dilapidation Reports

15.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

 

·           new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings),

 

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

 

·           as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  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.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

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

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW EPA Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works on site.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

17.     A Construction Site Management Plan must be developed and implemented prior to the commencement of any works. The construction site management plan must include the following measures, as applicable to the type of development:

 

·           location and construction of protective fencing / hoardings to the perimeter of the site;

·           location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·           location of building materials for construction;

·           provisions for public safety;

·           dust control measures;

·           site access location and construction

·           details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·           protective measures for tree preservation;

·           provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·           location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·           details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·           provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·           construction noise and vibration management;

·           construction traffic management details.

 

The site management measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout the works, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

A copy of the Construction Site Management Plan must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to commencing site works.  A copy must also be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

Demolition Work Plan

18.     A Demolition Work Plan must be prepared for the development in accordance with Australian Standard AS2601-2001, Demolition of Structures and relevant environmental/occupational health and safety requirements.

 

The Demolition Work Plan must include the following information (as applicable):

·           The name, address, contact details and licence number of the Demolisher /Asbestos Removal Contractor

·           Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·           Method/s of demolition (including removal of any asbestos)

·           Measures and processes to be implemented to ensure the health & safety of workers and community

·           Measures to be implemented to minimise any airborne dust and asbestos

·           Methods and location of disposal of any hazardous materials (including asbestos)

·           Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

·           Details of re-use, recycling and disposal of waste demolition/building materials

·           Date the demolition works will commence

 

The Demolition Work Plan must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA), not less than two (2) working days before commencing any demolition work.  A copy of the Demolition Work Plan must be maintained on site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

 

If the work involves asbestos products or materials, a copy of the Demolition Work Plan must also be provided to Council not less than 2 days before commencing those works.

 

Notes

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

§   Refer to the conditions within the “Requirements During Construction & Site Work”, for further details and requirements relating to demolition work, removal of any asbestos and public safety.

 

Demolition & Construction Waste

19.     A Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be developed and implemented for the development.

 

The Waste Management Plan must provide details of the type and quantities of demolition and construction waste materials, proposed re-use and recycling of materials, methods of disposal and details of recycling outlets and land fill sites.

 

Where practicable waste materials must be re-used or recycled, rather than disposed and further details of Council's requirements including relevant guidelines and pro-forma WMP forms can be obtained from Council's Customer Service Centre or by telephoning Council on 9399 0999.

 

Details and receipts verifying the recycling and disposal of materials must be kept on site at all times and presented to Council officers upon request.

 

Public Utilities

20.     A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out to identify all public utility services located on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the building works.

 

21.     The owner/builder must make the necessary arrangements and meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, Sydney Water and other authorities to adjust, repair or relocate their services as required.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

 

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

 

Inspections During Construction

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must specify the relevant stages of construction to be inspected and a satisfactory inspection must be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority, prior to proceeding to the subsequent stages of construction or finalisation of the works (as applicable).

 

Site Signage

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

 

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

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

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

 

Restriction on Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

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

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Demolition Work Requirements

25.     The demolition of buildings and the removal, storage, handling and disposal of building materials must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, the NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change & Water and Randwick City Council policies, including:

 

·           Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and Regulations

·           WorkCover NSW Code of Practice for the Safe Removal of Asbestos

·           WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·           Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·           The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

·           Relevant EPA Guidelines

·           Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

26.     Work involving the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products and materials must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

 

·           Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

 

·           Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

 

·           A WorkCover licensed demolition or asbestos removal contractor must undertake removal of more than 10m2 of bonded asbestos (or as otherwise specified by WorkCover or relevant legislation).  Removal of friable asbestos material must only be undertaken by contractor that holds a current friable asbestos removal licence.  A copy of the relevant licence must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·           On sites involving the removal of asbestos, a sign must be clearly displayed in a prominent visible position at the front of the site, containing the words ‘DANGER ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN PROGRESS’ and include details of the licensed contractor.

 

·           Asbestos waste must be stored, transported and disposed of in compliance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Waste) Regulation 2005.  Details of the landfill site (which must be lawfully able to receive asbestos materials) must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

·           A Clearance Certificate or Statement, prepared by a suitably qualified person (i.e. an occupational hygienist, licensed asbestos removal contractor, building consultant, architect or experienced licensed building contractor), must be provided to Council and the Principal certifying authority upon completion of the asbestos related works which confirms that the asbestos material have been removed appropriately and the relevant conditions of consent have been satisfied.

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

27.     Sediment and erosion control measures, must be implemented throughout the site works in accordance with the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to Council’s satisfaction.  Details are to be included in the Construction Site Management Plan.

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

g)     Temporary safety fencing is to be provided to any swimming pools under construction, pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

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

 

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

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

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

 

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

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

·      when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land;

·      as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Building Encroachments

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

 

Road/Asset Opening Permit

33.     Any openings within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place (i.e. for proposed drainage works or installation of services), must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of Council:

 

·          A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

·          The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for the development.

·          Relevant Road / Asset Opening Permit fees, repair fees, inspection fees and security deposits, must be paid to Council prior to commencing any works within or upon the road, footpath, nature strip or other public place.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

         

          Drainage

34.     Adequate provisions must be made to collect and discharge stormwater drainage during construction of the building to the satisfaction of the principal certifying authority.

 

Ausgrid

35.     As a mains power distribution pole is 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.

 

Tree Management

36.     Approval is granted for removal of all existing vegetation within the site due to their small size and insignificance including the gum tree located in the rear yard, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

An Occupation Certificate must not be issued for the development if the development is inconsistent with the development consent.  The relevant requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and conditions of development consent must be satisfied prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

BASIX Requirements

38.     In accordance with Clause 154B of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a Certifying Authority must not issue an Occupation Certificate for this development, unless it is satisfied that each of the required BASIX commitments have been fulfilled.

 

Relevant documentary evidence of compliance with the BASIX commitments is to be forwarded to the Council upon issuing an Occupation Certificate.

 

Swimming Pool Safety

39.     Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building (as defined in the Swimming Pools Act 1992) that is situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1926.1 – 2012 (Swimming Pool Safety Part 1 - Safety Barriers for Swimming Pools).

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided pending the completion of all building work and the pool must not be filled until a fencing inspection has been carried out and approved by the principal certifying authority.

 

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

 

Note: This development consent does not approve the design and location of swimming pool fencing and other swimming pool safety barriers. Swimming pool fencing and other safety barriers are required to comply with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Swimming Pools Regulation 2008. Details of compliance are required to be incorporated into the plans and specifications for a Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

Spa Pool Safety

40.     Spa pools are to be designed and  installed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and be provided with a child resistant barrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008.

 

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

 

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

41.     Swimming pools (and spa pools) are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

 

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

 

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

                 

c)      Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2010:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

 

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

 

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

42.     The owner of the premises must ‘register’ the swimming pool [or spa pool] on the NSW Swimming Pool Register, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012.

 

The Swimming Pool Register is administered by the NSW Government, Department of Premier & Cabinet, Division of Local Government and registration on the Swimming Pool Register may be made on-line via their website www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au.

 

Registration must be made before the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the pool.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings & Road Openings

43.     Prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for a Council approved contractor to:

a)     Construct concrete vehicular crossings and laybacks at kerb opposite the vehicular entrances to the site, to Council’s specifications and requirements.

b)     Remove the redundant concrete vehicular crossing and layback and to reinstate the area with concrete footpath, turf and integral kerb and gutter to Council's specification.

c)     Construct a concrete footpath along the full site frontage.  Any unpaved areas on the nature strip must be turfed and landscaped to Council’s specification.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sydney Water

46.     A section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  For details, please refer to the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your Land > Water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions may take some time and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to the issuing of an Occupation Certificate.

 

Ausgrid

47.     Prior to the issuing of any form of Occupation certificate 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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

48.     A "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the onsite detention/infiltration system is maintained and that no works which could affect the design function of the detention/infiltration system are undertaken without the prior consent (in writing) from Council. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

Notes:

a.   The “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” are to be to the satisfaction of Council. A copy of Council’s standard wording/layout for the restriction and positive covenant may be obtained from Council’s Development Engineer.

b.   The works as executed drainage plan and hydraulic certification must be submitted to Council prior to the “restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant” being executed by Council.

 

49.     A works-as-executed drainage plan prepared by a registered surveyor and approved by a suitably qualified and experienced hydraulic consultant/engineer must be forwarded to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council. The works-as-executed plan must include the following details (as applicable):

 

·      The location of any detention basin/s with finished surface levels;

·      Finished site contours at 0.2 metre intervals;

·      Volume of storage available in any detention areas;

·      The location, diameter, gradient and material (i.e. PVC, RC etc) of all stormwater pipes;

·      The orifice size/s (if applicable);

·      Details of any infiltration/absorption systems; and

·      Details of any pumping systems installed (including wet well volumes).

 

50.     The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer, which confirms that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and conditions of this development consent. 

 

The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the Hydraulic Engineers to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

 

Landscaping

51.     The landscaping shall be installed in general accordance with the submitted Landscape Design and specifications by Zenith Landscape Designs dated 21.7.15, Drwg No’s 15-3041 LO1 & LO2 prior to occupation of the development and the landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

 

Certification is to be obtained from a suitably qualified Landscape Architect and submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) (and Council, if Council is not the PCA) prior to the occupation of the development, which confirms that the landscaping works have been completed in accordance with the approved landscaping plans and relevant conditions of development consent, to the satisfaction of the PCA.

 

Waste Management

52.     The owner or applicant is required to contact Council’s City Services department, to make the necessary arrangements for the provision of waste services to the additional premises.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

External Lighting

53.     External lighting to the premises must be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

Street Numbering

54.     Street numbering must be provided to the front of the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council.

 

In this regard, an Application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of appropriate street and unit numbers for the development.

 

Plant & Equipment

55.     The operation of all plant and equipment upon the premises shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (EPA) Noise Control Guidelines.

 

Swimming/Spa Pools

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

 

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

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

Air Conditioners

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

 

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

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

 

Rainwater Tanks

58.     The operation of plant and equipment associated with rainwater tanks are to be restricted to the following hours if the noise emitted can be heard within a habitable room in any other residential premises:

 

·       before 8.00am or after 8.00pm on weekends or public holiday; or

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

59.     The site stormwater system must be regularly cleaned and maintained to ensure it operates as required by the design.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUING OF A STRATA CERTIFICATE

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

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works.

 

60.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must be constructed.

 

61.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must correspond to those depicted in the development consent (DA/535/2015) and construction certificate for the building.

 

62.     All facilities required under development consent (DA/535/2015) (such as parking spaces, terraces and courtyards) must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements.

 

63.     The applicant shall provide Council with a copy of the base plan of survey (e.g. Plan of Redefinition) for the property prior to receiving subdivision approval.

 

64.     The applicant shall create suitable rights of carriageway, easements for services, support and stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

65.     A formal subdivision application is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier and all conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied prior to the release of the subdivision plans.

 

66.     Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority, together with any other certification relied upon, must be provided to Council or the accredited certifier prior to the issuing of a strata certificate.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

A10    Demolition work and removal of asbestos materials:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A13    Underground assets (e.g. pipes, cables etc.) may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

 

A14    The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A15    Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Executive Report 11 Bond Street, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

2.

DA Compliance Report 11 Bond Street, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D2/16

 

Subject:                  Unit 1/99 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/665/2015)

Folder No:               DA/665/2015

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Conversion of undercroft area in the existing residential flat building into an additional dwelling

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mary Anna Storch

Owner:                    Mary Anna Storch

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview76088.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 proposed development is to convert the use of the existing  rear undercroft area into a 2 bedroom plus study apartment. The apartment comprises a GFA of 156.48m² and has a rear deck area of 16.51m² that is directly accessible from the main living area.

 

The existing parking arrangement allows for the provsion of 1 car space to be allocated to the additional proposed unit.  All works are contained within the existing built envelope and at the rear of the site and no change to the height of the existing apartment building is proposed.

 

The existing building has a maximum FSR of 1.2:1 and currently exceeds the maximum 0.9:1 FSR development standard set out in RLEP 2012.  The existing development, as proposed to be amended, has an FSR of 1.45:1.  The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation of the FSR development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

  

2.       Site

 

The subject site is known as 99 Carrington Road, Coogee and is formally described as Lot SP6507. The subject site is irregular in shape and has a frontage width of 15.24m to Carrington Road, depth of 45.72m to the north eastern and south western side boundaries and a total site area of 696.7m².  The land slopes steeply downward from the street to the rear of approximately 15.3 to 16m over the entire length of the site.

 

Existing on the site is a five storey residential flat building containing an undercroft area at the ground floor level which is privately owned, residential units at levels one and two, parking on the third level and residential units on the fourth level.

 

The subject site is located on the south eastern side of Carrington Road and due in the significant drop in the land the residential flat building has a two storey presentation to Carrington Road.

 

Adjoining the subject site to the north eastern side boundary is No. 97 Carrington Road, which is currently under construction for a part 3/part 4 residential flat building containing 11 units with 2 levels of basement car parking. To the south western side boundary of the subject site is no. 101 Carrington Road which consists of a residential flat building.  To the rear of the subject site borders the eastern neighbour which is a dwelling house located in a battle-axe site at no. 8 Ritchard Avenue.  The eastern neighbour is positioned approximately 14m south east of the residential flat building on the subject site. 

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by a mix of residential development comprising older and newer residential flat development, detached dwellings and semi- detached dwellings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Figure 1: View of the existing residential flat 
building from Carrington Road.
 
Figure 3: View to the south western side of the existing residential flat building.
 
Figure 2: View to the north eastern side of the existing residential flat building.
 
Figure 4: View of the site looking southeast, showing existing undercroft area
 
Figure 5: View of the site looking northwest, showing existing undercroft area
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


3.     Request to vary development standard

 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

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

 

Then proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio (FSR) development standard of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio, contained within RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

Clause 4.4 - Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4 (2) states that the maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.  The FSR indicated on the map for the land is 0.9:1.

 

The existing building has a maximum FSR of 1.2:1 and currently exceeds the maximum 0.9:1 FSR development standard set out in RLEP 2012.  The existing development, as proposed to be amended, has an FSR of 1.45:1 (or 1010.2m²).  The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Site area

696.7m²

Existing FSR

1.2:1 (or 836.04m²) The existing variation is 209.01m² or 33.3%.

Proposal

FSR of 1.45:1 (gross floor area of 1010.2m²). 

LEP development standard

0.9:1 (or 627.03m²)

% variation to development standard

61.1% (383.17m²)

 

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

 

Clause 4.6 of the Randwick LEP 2012 details exceptions to development standards and includes objectives which seek to:

 

(a)    Provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development.

(b)    Achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances

 

Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument.  However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause. 

 

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless the consent authority has considered a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the development standard by demonstrating:

 

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

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

 

Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a)    The consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

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

(b)   The concurrence of the director General has been obtained

 

In deciding whether to grant concurrence the Director General must consider:

 

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

(b)   The public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c)    Any other matter required to be taken into consideration by the Director General before granting concurrence.

 

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 a 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

 

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.

 

Applicant’s submission

The applicant’s submission provides contentions to demonstrate these objectives are satisfied, as evaluated below:

 

The following assessment is made against the objectives of the standard:

 

(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,

 

Applicant comment

 

 

 

 

 

Planner’s assessment

 

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

 

The size and scale of the proposed development is satisfactory – refer to summary comments below.

 

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

 

The existing building, as proposed to be altered, makes a positive contribution to the built form in the area – refer to summary comments below.

 

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

 

The proposal does not adversely impact upon any conservation area or heritage item.

 

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

 

The proposed increase in floor space does not result in a significant change in the height, bulk or scale of existing residential building.  The proposal makes use of an existing undercroft area at the rear of the building. The existing residential building, as proposed to be altered, remains consistent with the existing and future character of the area - refer to summary comments below.

 

1.      Consistency with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential Zone objectives

 

The relevant zone objectives are:

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Applicant comment

 

 

Planner’s comment

 

The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives.

 

2.      Consistency with State and Regional planning policies

 

Applicant comment

 

 

Planner’s comment

 

The replacement of a low density development with a medium density development is consistent with State and Regional planning policies.

 

3.      The variation allows for a better planning outcome

 

Applicant comment

 

 

 

 

 

Planner’s comment

 

The proposal allows for the orderly an economic use of the site without adverse amenity impacts for adjacent sites.

 

4.      There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

Applicant comment

 

 

 

Planner’s comment

 

The proposal does not trigger any adverse outcomes for the natural or built environment that would otherwise not occur were the scheme strictly compliant with the FSR control. The nature of the existing building with a large void space lends itself to appropriate infill development as there will be no significant change to the existing built form or its relationship to its neighbours.  The unique circumstances associated with the void space and where it’s situated in the existing building and on the site provide sufficient grounds for allowing the variation.

 

5.      The variation is in the public interest

 

Applicant comment

 

 

Planner’s comment

 

No circumstances have been identified to indicate that the development would not be in the public interest.

 

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

 

Planner’s comment

 

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

 

7.      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.

 

Planner’s comment

 

In response to the above it is noted:

 

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

 

·      Variation from the adherence to the FSR 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.

 

Assessment Summary

In summary, it is considered that strict compliance with the FSR development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·      The proposed increase in floor space does not result in a significant change in the height, bulk or scale of existing residential building.  The proposal makes better use of an existing unutilised undercroft area at the rear of the building.

 

·      The existing residential building, as proposed to be altered, remains consistent with the existing and future character of the area.

 

·      The proposed increase in floor space 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 new two (2) bedroom apartment is to be accommodated within the building envelope of an existing building, making use of an existing undercroft area which currently is not be utilised to its full potential.  The additional floor space is accommodated at the rear of the building, is not significantly noticeable from the streetscape due to the steep typography of the site and does not create an overbearing relationship to adjoining residential buildings located to the north east and south west of the site.

-     The height, front and side setbacks, bulk and scale of the building when viewed from Carrington Road will remain unchanged.

-     The proposed development does not result in any additional overshadowing of adjoining residential buildings to the north east, south west and south east of the site.

-     The proposed infilling of the ground level at the rear of the existing building does not result in an increase in the overall height or increase the footprint of the existing residential building.  The proposal does not result in any view loss to adjoining properties.

-     The unit has been design with good natural cross ventilation and access to sunlight for the amenity and liveability for the occupants of the unit.

-     Subject to recommended conditions the proposal has acceptable privacy impacts. 

 

·      Non-compliance with the FSR 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 FSR 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.

 

On the basis of arguments made by the applicant and the supplementary discussion provided above, the proposed development satisfies the provisions of Clauses 4.6(3) and (4) of the RLEP 2012. Therefore, the applicant’s written justifications for contravening the FSR standard is considered to be well founded and is supported.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Two (2) submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

8 Ritchard Avenue, Coogee

Issue

Comments

The existing building already exceeds the FSR and the proposed development will further increase the FSR standard in the LEP 2012.

Noted, refer to discussions made above on FSR under Request to vary development standard.

 

Removing the undercroft area will result in loss of communal space, storage and parking.

The undercroft area is privately owned and cannot be used as communal area for the existing dwelling units. 

 

There is adequate storage space allocated within the existing and proposed units.

 

The parking area cannot be accessed from this level.

 

Lack of parking for the occupants of the dwelling and for visitors, increase congestion and traffic and lack of bicycle parking area.

Council’s DCP states that where a development comprises a change in use, or alterations to an existing property, additional parking is generally only required to be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from increases in floor space or change in use.  Therefore, in this instance the DCP control requires an additional demand of 1.2 spaces (say 1 space) for a 2 bedroom unit.  Whilst no additional parking spaces have been allocated for the proposed unit, Councils Development Engineers have supported the deficiency as the additional unit will be allocated one of the existing carspaces and there is no scope to increase the existing parking provision over and above the current 7 spaces. The deficiency of one car space is not significant and the final parking rate provided on the site is one space per unit.

 

Infrastructure concerns relating to services for sewer, waste, storm water drainage and flooding.

Suitable conditions are included within the consent to ensure adequate levels of infrastructure are provided for the unit and the site.

 

The window and walls do not align with the rest of the building.

The plans indicate that the development is within the built form and aligns with the existing building.

 

Noise and acoustics concerns from the proposed rear open balcony.

The proposed balcony is orientated to the rear of the boundary and is located away from habitable room windows of the adjoining residences.  The balcony is setback a fair distance (greater than 9m) from this property which is adequate separation to provide reasonable levels of acoustic privacy between the dwelling units.  Also, vegetation to the rear of the property will obscure and minimise overlooking concerns.

 

 

Unit 7/101 Carrington Road, Coogee

Issue

Comments

The application does not include a site plan, shadow diagrams to indicate the proposed development complies with the DCP requirements nor views or photos from 101 Carrington Road.

 

 

The application requires further information to be rectified and submitted in relation to shading, privacy, noise and cross ventilation of the southern neighbouring before the application is considered by Council.

 

Enclosing the undercroft area will reduce cross ventilation into their unit and increase damp issues.

Sufficient information is provided within this application in order for Council to determine the amenity impacts associated with the proposed development.  Shadow diagrams are not required as there will be no increase to the existing overshadowing on the site.

 

Overall, it was considered that the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to neighbouring properties in relation to overshadowing as the proposed dwelling is located within the existing built form.  There is adequate separation among the buildings to allow for reasonable solar access, cross ventilation and acoustic privacy between the dwelling units. Subject to recommended conditions the proposal has acceptable privacy impacts. 

 

The existing FSR & height breaches should not be the justification of future FSR & height breaches.

Refer to assessment made above on FSR under Request to vary development standard.

 

The breach in the building height already exists and the proposed development will not further breach this standard.

 

There will be overlooking and loss of privacy to Unit 7/101 Carrington Road due to the entirety of the southern face being clear glass from floor to ceiling height. 

 

Also, the SEE does not detail any noise attenuation on the proposed floor to ceiling height windows and therefore, may result in noise concerns.

 

Subject to a condition it is not considered that the proposed window openings to the south elevation will result in unreasonable acoustic and privacy impacts.  Fixed and sliding external lourves are provided to the ensuite, robe and master bed room and a condition is included requiring 1.6m high fixed external lourves to be provided to the dining room window which will act as an acoustic buffer and minimise overlooking impacts to the neighbouring residential flat building. The remaining windows to along this elevation are setback a fair distance from the residential flat building at no. 101 Carrington Road which is adequate separation to provide reasonable levels of acoustic privacy between the dwelling units.

 

4.       Key Issues

 

Amenity Impacts

 

Sub-clause 5.3 - Visual Privacy

 

Objectives

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

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

 

The proposed dwelling unit is located at the rear ground floor of the existing residential flat building.   The window openings to the northern elevation will not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts as external lourves are provided to bedroom 1, bathroom and study which minimises overlooking impacts.  No additional privacy measures are required to the remaining kitchen and living windows including balcony along this side of the elevation as external privacy screens are provided to the new constructed building at no. 97 Carrington Road along this boundary.

 

To the southern side elevation fixed and sliding external lourves are provided to the ensuite, robe and master bed room which will provide reasonable levels of privacy between the dwelling units.  However, the dining room window along this elevation may cause privacy concerns as it is directly opposite the rear balconies of the neighbouring property’s residential flat building.  To ensure reasonable privacy measures are maintained to this neighbouring property 1.6m high fixed external lourves are to be provided to this dining room window.

 

The remaining kitchen and living area window openings and rear balcony to the southern elevation are setback a fair distance from the residential flat building at no. 101 Carrington Road and will be partially obscured by existing vegetation; and therefore, do not require further privacy measures to be implemented.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy No.65: Design Quality of Residential Flat Development

 

The Design Review panel has reviewed the proposed development and a number of minor recommendations have been made in relation to landscaping and amenity to improve the overall design of the development.  Conditions have been included to address these recommendations.

 

Whilst the panel has recommended that the dining room should be less enclosed, the layout of the apartment provides flexibility in terms of its use and the arrangement of rooms are cohesive in their design.

 

Subject to the provision of a landscape scheme and amenity consideration the proposed development will meet the design quality principles set out under the SEPP and will provide a high level of amenity to the apartment.

 

Overall, the panel concludes it a “good proposal and comments it to Council”.

 

5.       Development Engineers

 

The application has been referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comments. The following comments have been made on the parking provision:

 

Parking Comments

The SEE submitted with the application does not provide details on the existing unit mix. There are 6 existing units and for the purpose of this report it has been assumed that they are all 2 bedroom units. The current parking provision is 6 spaces and strict compliance with Council’s DCP would have required (6 x 1.2) spaces allocated to units and 1.5 visitor spaces. The development site therefore has a parking credit of approximately 3 spaces.

 

The applicant does not propose any additional parking for the new unit and therefore the additional demand of 1.2 spaces (say 1 space) is not provided. Council has adopted the principle that where a development comprises a change in use, or alterations to an existing property, additional parking is generally only required to be provided to cater for the additional demands arising from increases in floor space or change in use.  In this instance the increased demand is approximately 1 space and the applicant has indicated that the additional unit will be allocated one of the existing carspaces.

 

The final parking allocation will be 7 spaces for 7 units (1 space per unit). There is no scope to increase the parking provision over and above the current 7 spaces and the deficiency created by this application is supportable.  Conditions relating to amending the current strata plan have been included within this report.

 

6.       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.

 

7.       Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

8.       Conclusion

 

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under RLEP 2012 and the proposed development is permissible with development consent within the R3 zone.  The proposal involves the conversion of an unattractive undercroft area into a 2 bedroom residential dwelling unit. No change to the overall height, bulk and scale of the existing apartment building is proposed.

 

The existing building has a maximum FSR of 1.21 and currently exceeds the maximum 0.9:1 FSR development standard set out in RLEP 2012.  The existing development, as proposed to be amended, has an FSR of 1.45:1.  The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation of the FSR 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.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs. Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Application No. DA/665/2015 may be supported.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.4 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 & 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/665/2015 for conversion of undercroft area in the existing residential flat building into an additional dwelling at No. 1/99 Carrington Road, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   Fixed aluminum privacy lourves having a minimum height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the dining room window on the southern elevation. The lourves shall be fixed at an angle to prevent overlooking into the neighbouring property.

 

b.   Landscaping shall be provided to the site to enhance its amenity for future occupants as well as to reduce any impacts of the development upon neighbouring properties.

 

c.   A high quality selection and arrangement of decorative species that are not reliant on high quantities of moisture and fertilizer for survival shall be provided to the southern side of the communal area.

 

d.   A landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of either AILDM, AILA or similar) shall be submitted to, and be approved by the PCA, prior to the commencement of site works and must detail the following:

 

·      A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity and any other details needed to describe the works;

 

·      A predominance of species that are not reliant on high quantities of moisture and fertilizer for survival;

 

·      A high quality selection and arrangement of decorative species throughout the communal areas so as to cater to the future amenity needs of occupants.

 

e.   Ceiling fans shall be provided to the bedrooms.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - Unit 1/99 Carrington Road, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D3/16

 

Subject:                  38 Canberra Street, Randwick (DA/538/2015)

Folder No:               DA/538/2015

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd     

 

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing structures, construction of two storey boarding house and garage fronting lane way with boarding room and bathroom above providing 11 rooms in total for 14 lodgers, 2 car park spaces, motorcycle parking and associated works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr D Sandig

Owner:                    Palmlace Property Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview40289.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

Due to distance of submissions received– some were not shown on this map

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 an objector to the proposal is a Council employee.

Proposal

The proposal involves the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a two storey boarding house development containing 11 self-contained rooms. The development will involve:

 

·      Eight single rooms and three double rooms;

·      All rooms include a private bathroom;

·      Ten rooms will include a private kitchenette;

·      Communal kitchen, living area and accessible bathroom;

·      Communal outdoor area; and

·      Two car parking spaces, three motorbike spaces in rear garage and four bicycle spaces in the breezeway.

 

The proposed development comprises two buildings, the main building fronts Canberra Street and includes the majority of the development. The rear building contains one room above the garage and fronts Canberra Lane.

 

The boarding house provides two car parking spaces, including one accessible space, and three motorbike spaces access from Canberra Land and 4 bicycle spaces access from Canberra Street.

 

Background

 

The application was the subject of a pre-DA application (PL/21/2015). The pre-DA advice made a number of recommendations in order to achieve an optimal design of development on the site. Certain recommendations have been incorporated into the design to provide for increased privacy for neighbours, improved motor bike parking and a more open communal space.

 

Photomontage 2

Figure 1: Extract of Plans

1.  Site

 

The site has a frontage of 9.68m to Canberra Street, a depth of 45.72m, the rear boundary is 9.72m and fronts onto Canberra Lane.

 

To the north is a single residential dwelling, to the south is a dual occupancy, to west is Canberra Lane and to the east is Canberra Street and single residential dwellings.

 

Canberra Street is a single lane road with room available for street parking on either side of the road. Canberra Lane is a narrow laneway which predominantly provides access to the rear garages of dwellings fronting Canberra Street. A residential flat building on Helena Street also addresses the lane.

This area is generally characterized by low density residential development of the inter-war period. The site is within 1km of the Spot and 1.5km of the Randwick Junction. The site is within 400m of a number of bus stops which accommodate buses travelling to the city and Bondi Junction, as well as buses to East Gardens and Maroubra.

 

The site is also within close proximity to the Prince of Wales Hospital, the University of NSW, Randwick Tafe, Randwick Boys High School, Randwick Girls High School and Rainbow Primary School.

 

The below photographs show the subject site and surrounding development.

Figure 2: Photograph showing the existing dwelling.

 

IMG_7695

Figure 3: Photograph showing the subject site frontage to Canberra Lane.

 

IMG_7693

Figure 4: Photograph showing rear Canberra Lane.

 

IMG_7680 Figure 5: Photograph showing surrounding development along Canberra Street.

 

IMG_7686

Figure 6: Photograph showing medium density development along Canberra Lane.

 

IMG_7681

Figure 7: Photograph showing medium density development in the area.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

1.   204 Rainbow St,

2.   209 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

3.   210 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

4.   211 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

5.   195A Rainbow St, RANDWICK

6.   182 Rainbow St, RANDWICK (x2)

7.   200 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

8.   197 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

9.   174 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

10. 162 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

11. 164 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

12. 172 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

13. 160A Rainbow St, RANDWICK

14. 166 Rainbow St, RANDWICK

 

15. 34 Creer St, RANDWICK 

16. 9 Creer St, RANDWICK 

17. 11A Creer St, RANDWICK 

18. 15 Creer St, RANDWICK 

19. 36 Creer St, RANDWICK 

20. 11 Creer St, RANDWICK 

21. 17 Creer St, RANDWICK 

22. A Creer resident

 

23. 14 Oberon St, RANDWICK

24. 43 Oberon St, RANDWICK

 

 

25. Unit 8/53 Helena St, RANDWICK

26. 45 Helena St, RANDWICK

27. Unit 5/53 Helena St, RANDWICK

28. Unit 7/49 Helena St, RANDWICK

29. 49 Helena St, RANDWICK

30. 14 Helena St, RANDWICK

 

31. 33 Canberra St, RANDWICK

32. 9 Canberra St, RANDWICK

33. 74 Canberra St, RANDWICK

34. 40 Canberra St, RANDWICK

35. 47 Canberra St, RANDWICK (x5)

36. 10 Canberra St, RANDWICK

37. 42 Canberra St, RANDWICK

38. 49 Canberra St, RANDWICK

39. 34 Canberra St, RANDWICK

40. 43 Canberra St, RANDWICK

41. 64 Canberra St, RANDWICK

42. 52 Canberra St, RANDWICK (x2)

43. 36 Canberra St, RANDWICK (x2)

44. 70 Canberra St, RANDWICK

45. 32 Canberra St, RANDWICK (x2)

46. 48A Canberra St, RANDWICK

47. 26 Canberra St, RANDWICK

48. 51 Canberra St, RANDWICK

49. 37 Canberra St, RANDWICK

50. 44 Canberra St, RANDWICK

51. Canberra Street Action Group with a petition of 98 signatures.

 

 

Issues

Comments

Parking:

·      The development provides insufficient off-street car parking spaces;

·      Canberra Street has an existing on-street parking shortage; and

·      The proposal does not meet the minimum parking requirements.

The submitted plans indicate two off-street car spaces including 1 disabled space, and three motorbike spaces, are proposed off the Canberra Lane. The SEPP requires the proposed development to provide 2.2 car parking spaces. The Development Engineer considers the development achieves sufficient off street parking under the SEPP (Affordable Housing).

 

Refer to Development Engineers comments for further detail.

Traffic:

The corner of Canberra Street and Rainbow Street has existing congestion, sight line and safety issues. The proposed development will exacerbate these issues.

The proposed development will result in:

·      Increased traffic congestion on Canberra Street and nearby intersections.

The traffic generation associated with the proposal would be minimal given 2 car spaces are required, and as such there are not anticipated to be any congestions as traffic safety issues.

Light & Overshadowing:

The proposed development will result in:

·      Overshadowing of neighbouring properties;

·      Reduced light to neighbouring properties;

·      Increase shadow and the shadow diagrams provided are inaccurate.

 

The site is within a low density area, generally consisting of single and semi-detached dwellings with limited side setbacks and rear first floor additions. The compact built form results in overshadowing between neighbours.

 

The shadow diagrams indicate that currently, the southern neighbour receives minimal direct sunlight to the north facing windows during June. The proposed development will result in increased overshadowing of the southern neighbours north facing wall.

 

Approximately half of the southern neighbours’ private open space receives direct sunlight in June for at least 3 hours.

 

The proposed development meets the Low Density Residential Development DCP requirements for overshadowing and setback, as well as the FSR and height requirement.

Bulk, Scale & Density:

The proposed development:

·      Has a significant increase to the bulk and scale of the surrounding development within the area; and

·      Is inconsistent in terms of style, height and size compared with surrounding development.

The proposed development is larger than the majority of dwellings along western side of Canberra Street. However, there are examples of modern and inter-war medium density development within the immediate vicinity. Despite this it has an FSR less than the maximum permissible for a single dwelling in the R2 zone.

 

The proposed development has two storeys at the front façade. While many of the existing dwellings are single storey at the front façade, they include rear second storey additions. Despite this, the development meets the minimum LEP height requirements for the zone.

 

The proposed development has a similar appearance of bulk to nearby sites include the RFB on the corner of Canberra Street and Creer Street, and Helena Street and Canberra Lane.

 

The development has a modern design compared with the inter-war era dwellings. However, the development incorporates landscaping, height and setbacks generally consistent with the surrounding dwellings.

 

Design & Streetscape:

The proposed development is:

·      Inconsistent with the existing heritage style streetscape and design;

·      Has a reduced front setback and front garden compared with neighbouring properties;

·      Has a large front fence inconsistent with surrounding development;

·      Has a boxy design and flat roof inconsistent with surrounding development;

·      Not compatible with the surrounding low density area; and

·      The garage takes up the whole rear boundary to the lane.

The majority of dwellings along Canberra Street are inter-war and post war developments. Their conventional designs generally include a 3-5m setback, main entrance off the street frontage, single storey frontage and pitched roof. However, as mentioned many of these dwellings include two storey rear additions. There are some inter-war double storey dwellings and residential flat buildings in the immediate vicinity on Canberra Street.

 

The subject locality is not a Conservation Area and the site is not within the immediate vicinity of any Heritage Items.

Further, the majority of neighbours appear to have alterations, including first storey rear additions.

 

The development has a setback of approximately 5m which is consistent with the streetscape, the setback is landscaped and the common entrance is off Canberra Street.

 

The frontage is two storeys, has a low pitched roof. However, the scale, FSR and height are permissible and generally consistent with the desired future character anticipated by Council’s planning controls.

 

Although the garage does take up the whole rear boundary, it is considered reasonable as it is generally consistent with other garages fronting Canberra Lane. The first floor room will also provide improved passive surveillance. 

 

Fence: The majority of properties along west side of Canberra Street have a low fence. This development has a modern style, horizontally slatted wooden fence. An appropriate condition will be included to address the fence design.

 

Waste:

Waste trucks will result in conflict with vehicles along Canberra Street.

 

The development has proposed to provide five bins. However, Council’s Development Engineers has stated that the development will actually require seven bins, including four general bins and three recycle bins.

 

There will be seven bins on Canberra Street on a fortnightly basis and four bins every other week.

 

It will be the responsibility of management to ensure the bins are appropriately positioned on the street for pick up and returned to the storage area.

Noise:

The proposed development application does not include an acoustic report.

The proposed development:

·      may result increased noise levels; and

·      should include some form of noise screening.

An Acoustic Report was provided to Council. Council’s Environmental Health Officer advised that:

 

Details of any plant and equipment or air conditioning have not been included in the application. Conditions have been included to ensure acoustic criteria is complied with.

 

The use and the operation of the boarding house accommodation has the potential to create offensive noise and the patrons behaviours is likely to impact on the other users of the boarding house and/or the neighbouring residential properties.

 

The use of the common areas have been restricted for use to between 7:00am and 10:00pm daily.

 

The potential for noise nuisance has been considered and appropriate conditions have been included.

 

Standard conditions in relation to pollution control have been included in the following referral to ensure compliance with relevant legislation and guidelines.

 

LEP – FSR:

The proposed development is inconsistent with the permissible FSR for the site.

 

The Randwick LEP 2012 FSR map permits 0.5:1 and 0.75:1 for houses and semi-detached dwellings.

 

The proposed development is subject to the Affordable Rental Housing SEPP, which permits:

 

·      the existing maximum floor space ratio for any form of residential accommodation permitted on the land.

 

Therefore, the proposed FSR of 0.61:1 is permissible in accordance with the SEPP.

Zone:

The proposed development is inconsistent with the zone objectives.

 

The R2 zone objectives are:

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed boarding house will provide for the housing needs of local residents, while the boarding house provides an appropriate FSR consistent with the low density zone.

 

The proposed development will have a setback of 5.1m to the lower level and 4.7m to the upper balcony.

 

Measures have been taken to provide appropriate privacy and overshadowing for neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed development will provide affordable housing options for up to 14 people within the area.

 

Appropriate conditions have been included to address any acoustic impacts. Further, a Plan of Management will be implemented to protect the acoustic amenity and safety of neighbours, the design positions windows to not overlook the private open space of neighbours, the development will result in additional overshadowing to the southern neighbours rear yard but to an acceptable level.

 

Council’s affordable housing strategy:

·      Council’s current Affordable Housing Strategy is not up-to-date and therefore DA shouldn’t be approved until new strategy is developed.

Randwick Council’s Affordable Housing Strategy was completed in 2007. It recognized the loss of affordable housing and boarding houses within the inner ring suburbs of Sydney and the Randwick area. In response Council developed a number of strategies to counter the loss of affordable housing stock and boarding houses, including developing a Boarding House DCP.

 

The proposed development will provide affordable housing options for up to 14 residents and generally meets the requirements of Council’s Boarding house DCP and Affordable Housing SEPP.

 

AHSEPP:

The proposed development is inconsistent with the ARHSEPP in relation to:

·      the site is more than 400m from a B2 and B4 zone; and

·      ARHSEPP 29(2)(e).

 

The proposal is located within an accessible area in accordance with the ARHSEPP. Parking for two vehicles including 1 accessible space (and shared zone) is provided for residents.

 

The development also includes three motor bike parking spaces.

 

Council’s Development Engineer noted that the development is within an accessible area and a number of bus stops. For the subject proposal of 11 rooms the minimum provision of 2.2 spaces is required. The submitted plans indicate two off-street car spaces are proposed off the Canberra Lane frontage including 1 accessible space. This generally achieves the required amount of vehicle parking under the SEPP (Affordable Housing), rounded down from 2.2 to 2 spaces.

 

Section 79C:

The proposed development may result in:

·      Social issues resulting from a transient population usually associated with Boarding Houses, including students, travelers, recovering addicts, criminals;

·      Increased noise, people loitering to smoke, rubbish dumping due to the higher turnover, drunkenness and drug abuse in the area; and

·      Reduced safety for local residents including children.

There was also a concern about how the boarding house would be managed in the future, how use as a boarding house could guaranteed and whether the site could be strata subdivided.

A Plan of Management (POM) has been developed which aims to retain the amenity and safety of local neighbours and boarding house residents. The conditions will require an amended POM to be provided which appropriately addresses any issues raised in this report. 

 

Clause 52 ARHSEPP prohibits the strata or community title subdivision of a boarding house.

 

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP)

Character of Local Area (Clause 30)

 

The consent authority is required to take into consideration whether the design of the development is compatible with the character of the local area.

 

Context:

The site has a frontage of 9.68m to Canberra Street, a depth of 45.72m and the rear boundary is 9.72m, which fronts onto Canberra Lane.

 

To the north is a single residential dwelling, to the south is an attached dwelling, to the west is Canberra Lane and to the east is Canberra Street and a number of single residential dwellings. Canberra Street is a single lane road with room available for street parking on either side. Canberra Lane is a narrow laneway which predominantly provides access to the rear garages of dwellings fronting Canberra Street. A residential flat building on Helena Street also addresses the lanes.

 

This area is generally characterized by low density residential development of the inter-war period.

 

The site is within 1km of the Spot and 1.5km of the Randwick Junction. The site is within 400m of a number of bus stops which accommodate buses travelling to the city and Bondi Junction, as well as buses to East Gardens and Maroubra.

 

The locality is occupied by a mix of residential land uses including single and attached dwellings, most of which include alterations and additions, predominantly to the rear of buildings. There are also a number of inter-war and new residential flat buildings in the area. The built form and height is comparable to and compatible with the proposed development.

 

The following image demonstrates the zoning context, the site is identified in red.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Zoning context

LEP MAP

Figure 10: Zoning Map

 

Compatibility of built form:

The proposed development will have a two storey, square form. The subject site and surrounding area has a maximum permissible height of 9.5m. The proposed development has a maximum height of 6.65m.

 

The proposed development will have an FSR of 0.61:1, which is permissible in accordance with the ARHSEPP. Single dwellings and semi-detached dwellings in the zone can have a permissible FSR of up to 0.75:1.

 

The permissible front setback for low density residential development is the average of the neighbours this development has a setback of 4.8m which is generally consistent, the side is 900mm and the rear garage is built on the boundary line. Although these controls do not apply to Boarding Houses, with the exception of the rear boundary lodgings the proposed development generally meets these controls.

 

The main built form will be generally consistent with the side setbacks and height controls in Council’s DCP and as such will be consistent with the desired future character envisaged by Council’s planning policies.

 

The following image shows the street frontage of the proposed development to Canberra Street.

 

Photomontage 1

Figure 11: Photomontage of proposed development as presented to Canberra Street.

Figure 12: Existing Residential Flat Building on corner of Canberra Lane and Helena Street.

Figure 13: Existing Residential Flat Building on corner of Canberra Street and Creer Street.

Figure 14: Proposed rear boundary.

Figure 15: Existing Canberra Lane.

 

Clause 29(2)(e) Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent states that:

 

(i)       in the case of development in an accessible area—at least 0.2 parking spaces are provided for each boarding room.

 

The proposed development requires 2.2 car parking spaces. The development includes two vehicle spaces and three motorbike spaces.

 

Council’s Development Engineer noted that the development is within an accessible area and a number of bus stops. For the subject proposal of 11 rooms the minimum provision of 2.2 spaces is required. The submitted plans indicate two off-street car spaces are proposed off the Canberra Lane frontage including 1 accessible space. This generally achieves the required amount of vehicle parking under the SEPP (Affordable Housing), rounded down from 2.2 to 2 spaces.

 

Given the accessible located, proximity to services and provision of motorbike and bicycle spaces the provision of two car spaces is considered reasonable.

 

Compatibility of use:

 

The proposed boarding house is considered to be compatible with the areas as:

 

·      It is a residential development, which will provide habitation for singles and couples;

·      It will provide affordable housing options for low income earners;

·      It will provide alternative housing options within a predominantly single dwelling area, by providing low density and compact housing within close proximity to services.

 

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 boarding house will provide for the housing needs of local residents, while the boarding house provides an appropriate FSR consistent with the low density zone and measures have been taken to provide appropriate privacy and overshadowing for neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed development will provide affordable housing options for up to 14 people within the area.

 

Acoustic Privacy

 

The use and the operation of the boarding house accommodation has the potential to create offensive noise and the behaviour of occupants may impact on the other users of the boarding house and/or the neighbouring residential properties.

An acoustic report was submitted to Council prepared by acoustic report prepared by Acouras Consultancy.

 

The potential for noise nuisance has been considered and appropriate conditions have been included, which will be implemented through a Plans of Management.

 

Details of any plant and equipment or air conditioning have not been included in the application. Conditions have been included to ensure acoustic criteria is complied with.

 

Solar Access

 

The existing building overshadows the north facing windows on the southern neighbour, which does not receive any direct sunlight during the winter solitude. The proposed development will result in a minor increase in overshadowing to the southern neighbours private open space, however approximately half of this area will receive at least 50% direct sunlight in winter.

 

The proposed impacts are considered acceptable in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

·      The east west orientation of the subject site and neighbouring properties along Canberra Street will result in an inevitable amount of overshadowing for any compliant form of development to the north.

·      Shadow diagrams indicate the north facing windows are already overshadowed on June 21.

·      The proposed development complies with the FSR controls allowable under the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and generally satisfies the requirements of Council’s DCP controls, indicative of an acceptable form of development on the site compatible with surrounding development and the local character of the area.

·      The proposed height, FSR and setbacks are compliant with the Randwick LEP 2012 and the Randwick DCP.

 

The impacts are assessed as acceptable in the circumstances.

 

Garage Configuration

 

The garage width of 9.72m is considered acceptable  given:

 

·      The garage is located on the rear lane, allowing the front façade to address Canberra Street;

·      The garage occupies the width of the rear boundary which is generally consistent with the existing garage and carport configuration and common practice along Canberra Lane;

·      The garage and first floor room are well integrated into the overall design and provide amenity to the Lane;

·      The garage provides two spaces, including an accessible space.

 

Boarding Rooms

 

The Boarding House DCP states that where provided, private open space in the form of a balcony or terrace must have a minimum useable area of 4 square metres. Only 3 of the 8 balconies or terraces have a usable area of 4m².

 

This non-compliance is considered acceptable because of the availability of communal open spaces and internal amenity from the large rear windows and glass doors enhance the sense of openness to these rooms.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development generally satisfies the requirements of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and Council’s LEP and DCP controls. Departures where evident have been justified in the body of this report.

 

The proposed boarding house will facilitate the zone objectives by providing housing options and an opportunity for affordable housing in a low density manner. 

 

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. DA/538/2015 for construction of an eleven (11) room boarding house, at No. 38 Canberra Road, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)     In order to maintain to the existing streetscape the front fence must be no higher than 1200mm (solid portion not exceeding 600mm), except for piers.

b)     The side fences must have a maximum height of 1800mm and taper down to front fence height once past the front façade alignment.

c)     Screening must be provided to the terraces of rooms 3 and 4 to improve privacy and restrict views from the common walkway.

 

Plan of Management

66.     An amended Plan of Management (PoM) shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the occupation certificate being issued. The PoM must include (but not be limited to) measures and procedures required to be followed so as to provide;

 

·      Appropriate restrictions of use of communal areas including outdoor areas,

 

·      Ensure compliance with the relevant conditions of approval,

 

·      Minimise the potential impact of the operation of the premises upon nearby residents,

 

·      Effectively minimise and manage anti-social behaviour,

 

·      Establish a complaints management system.

 

·      Nominate the permissible maximum number of occupants per room

 

·      Identify permissible use of external balconies (i.e. restrict hanging clothes over balconies, storage of excessive furniture, late night social gatherings etc)

 

·      Criteria and process for choosing residents preference should be given to people on low and moderate incomes;

 

·      A schedule detailing minimum furnishings for boarding rooms, provision of facilities andappliances for kitchens, bathrooms and laundryrooms and maximum occupancy of each room,

 

·      House rules, covering issues such as lodger behaviour, visitor and party policies, activities and noise control, use and operation hours of common areas (e.g. communal open space and living rooms) and policies for regulating smoking and consumption of alcohol and illicit drugs,

 

·      Professional cleaning and vermin control arrangements for at minimum, the shared facilities, such as kitchens and bathrooms; Public notice and signs, including:

 

·      A sign showing the name and contact number of the manager/caretaker, placed near the front entry and in a visible position to the public;

·      Clear display of fixed room identification number for each boarding room; and

 

·      Internal signage prominently displayed in each boarding room and/or communal living areas informing maximum number of lodgers per room, house rules, emergency contact numbers for essential services, annual fire safety statement and current fire safety schedule and emergency egress routes and evacuation plan.

 

·      The manager/caretaker must maintain an up-to-date accommodation register with information on residents’ details, length of stay, etc. and provide to Council officers upon request.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 38 Canberra Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D4/16

 

Subject:                  267 Rainbow Street, South Coogee (DA/544/2015)

Folder No:               DA/544/2015

Author:                    Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Construction of new double garage with studio above fronting Bundock Lane, inground swimming pool and removal of an existing tree on the south western corner of the site

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Ms C H Robinson

Owner:                    Ms C H Robinson

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview70973.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external consultant and referred to Council for determination as the applicant is a friend of a Randwick City Councillor.

Proposal

 

The proposed development includes:

 

·      Demolition of the existing carport in the rear yard and brick fence along the rear boundary with the lane

·      A detached double garage with access from Bundock Lane at the rear of the site

·      An attic studio above the garage with a terrace

·      An in ground swimming pool and spa

 

The garage is proposed on a nil setback to the rear and side boundaries. It provides parking for two vehicles, storage and bicycle parking. Access to the rear yard is provided by way of internal stairs and a hallway within the garage.

 

The attic studio above the garage also includes a small terrace facing the rear yard, with steps down to a new deck which adjoins the proposed swimming pool along the western side boundary of the property.

 

Site

 

The site is an irregular shape with site boundaries of 10.06m to Rainbow Street, 10.885m to Bundock Lane, and eastern and western side boundaries of 44.635m and 48.68m, respectively. The area of the site is 469.4m2 and the land slopes gently from Rainbow Street to Bundock Lane with a fall of approximately 2m from north to south and 1.5 from east to west. Existing development on the site comprises a single storey dwelling house with attached timber deck at the rear, and a detached carport with access from Bundock Lane.

 

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:

 

·      265 Rainbow Street, South Coogee

 

Issues

Comments

Privacy and overlooking

There are no windows oriented to the side boundaries and the line of sight to neighbouring properties is reduced through the privacy screen to the studio window facing north.

Swimming pool built to boundary

There is a 900mm setback from the proposed pool to the western side boundary and screen planting will be provided in the setback area.

Deck located on shared boundary

A condition has been included in the consent for a privacy screen on the western side of the proposed deck between the pool and studio.

 

The deck to the north of the proposed pool has previously been approved under Complying Development and does not form part of this application.

Garage to be built to side boundary and excavation impacting garage

The location of the proposed garage on a nil setback to the side boundary is permissible and consistent with the existing pattern of development on Bundock Lane with garages built on or near site boundaries. Conditions have been included in the development consent with regard to the support of adjoining structures, excavation and retaining walls.

 

Key Issues

 

Privacy and overlooking:

A condition has been included in the consent requiring a 1.6m high privacy screen be constructed on the western edge of the proposed deck to increase privacy between the site and the neighbouring property to the west.

 

Fence height

There is an approved retaining wall under a CDC along the western side boundary to a maximum RL 57. The application proposes a 1.6m high timber fence on top of the approved retaining wall. As the site slopes to Bundock Lane the maximum height of the retaining wall and proposed fence will be 2.6m, however the existing garage on the adjoining property to the west is located in the south eastern corner of the property where the fence will be at its maximum height. There will be no adverse visual impact of the fence as a result of proposed and existing garages on each property.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development is consistent with the existing and likely future character of the area. The garage and attic dwelling above meet the objectives and controls for laneway development and the application is worthy of support, subject to 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. 544/2015 for the demolition of a carport, construction of a new double garage with studio above, inground swimming pool and removal of an existing tree, at No. 267 Rainbow Street, South Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 267 Rainbow Street, South Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D5/16

 

Subject:                  327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/396/2015/A)

Folder No:               DA/396/2015/A

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of approved development by increase in size of second floor deck, installation of mechanical exhaust system, internal alteration to first floor bathroom, removal of two ground floor windows. Original Consent: Alterations and additions to the existing shop top housing including upper level addition, new rear carport with roller door and new under awning sign.

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr W Angkhawut

Owners:                  Mr W Angkhawut & Mrs W Chalothorn

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview20236.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application has been assessed by external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as the applicant is a Randwick City Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

DA/396/2015 approved on 22 September 2015 at the subject site sought approval for:

·      Alterations to the internal layout of the first floor flat; and

·      Additions of a second storey, including two bedrooms, a bathroom and rear deck.

 

The DA/396/2015 was approved, with no significant planning issues being identified as part of the assessment process.

 

The Section 96 Modification, DA/396/2015/A, seeks approval for:

·      Deletion of a partial roof over the rear balcony, increases to the size of second floor rear deck and inclusion of privacy screen;

·      Install a mechanical exhaust system; and

·      Internal alteration to first floor bathroom, removal of two ground floor windows.

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as 327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly and is formally described as Lot A in DP 24203. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a 6.6m frontage to Clovelly Road in the south and a 6.5m frontage to an unnamed rear lane in the north.

 

The site has a depth of 21.5m and forms a total area of 196m².

 

The subject site currently comprises a ground floor restaurant fronting Clovelly Road with one (1) residential unit above.

 

Vehicle access to the site via the rear lane.

 

The adjoining properties to the east and west of the subject site are developed in a similar manner (semi detached and attached). Clovelly Road is one level lower than the rear, which results in a 2 storey frontage to Clovelly Road and a single storey built from at the rear. The adjoining properties all have commercial uses at the ground floor fronting Clovelly Road, as shown below.

 

Figure 1: Subject site and surrounding sites, as viewed from Clovelly Road.

 

IMG_20151123_112620

Figure 2: Rear façade if subject site, as viewed from rear boundary.

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:

 

·      288 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

·      325 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

 

Issues

Comments

Concerns about the potential noise impacts generated from the proposed new kitchen exhaust. The new exhaust should not be louder than the existing exhaust system.

In response to these noise emission concerns the applicant was requested to provide a noise assessment. The noise assessment made a number of recommendations for noise amelioration measures which are designed to reduce noise emission to below the noise goal.

Providing the recommendations are installed, noise emissions are predicted to comply with the guidelines provided by the NSW EPA for the outside environment.

 

Conditions will be provided which require the applicant to implement the noise amelioration measures.

The privacy screen should be extended along the depth of the first floor deck.

The glass doors opening out to the rear deck have been widened. The rear deck overlooks into the private open space to the rear of my property will considerably impact the amenity of my property.

The proposed balcony amendments include:

 

·      Widening of the balcony from 2.358m to 3.26m. This is an increase of 0.9m;

·      An additional glass door, totaling three;

·      Increase the total area from 3m² to 3.9m². This is an increase of 0.9m²;

·      The proposed balcony will include a 1.8m screen from the floor level, with a depth of 1.2m (the depth of the balcony).

 

The development will be conditioned to include an additional privacy screen, 1.8m high and 0.5m wide on the north-west corner of the balcony.

 

The proposed and additional screening will improve privacy between the subject site and the neighbouring properties backyard.

The proposed new exhaust has a height greater than the maximum permissible building height.

In accordance with the RLEP 2012 ‘chimneys, flues and the like’ are excluded from the building height.

The proposed new exhaust has been designed in accordance with the Australian Standards, with a height of at least 100mm above the ridgeline. Therefore the proposed exhaust is permissible and compliant in this instance.  

 

 

 

Key Issues

 

Acoustic Privacy

 

The proposed Section 96 includes the installation of a new exhaust to replace the existing, non-compliant kitchen exhaust. A noise assessment was undertaken by Noise and Sound Services, which outlined a number of recommendations to ensure that the noise emissions were in accordance with the appropriate regulations. The recommendations are list below:

 

·      A noise barrier should be installed to break the line of sight between the fan outlet and the windows located in the passageway of 325 Clovelly Road. A noise barrier, located 300 mm horizontally from the fan, should extend 600 mm above the fan outlet based on the current proposed design.

 

The noise barrier should be constructed to provide a sound transmission loss of Rw30 with internal sound absorption rated at more than NRC 0.8. All weather acoustic panels are available from several noise control product suppliers and are typically constructed of 1mm solid external sheet steel, internal perforated sheet steel and 50mm Rockwool 350 insulation to the cavity.

 

·      Ductwork fixed to the wall of 327 Clovelly Road, within the passageway and up to the roof line, should be enclosed by 1mm steel sheet or 12mm FC sheet. Glass wool insulation having a density of 32kg/m³ and a minimum thickness of 25mm should be installed within the cavity between the duct and the external sheet. The external sheet must not be in contact with the ductwork.

 

This determination will condition the above acoustic recommendations for the proposal.

 

Visual Privacy

 

The alterations to the rear first floor balcony include deletion of the partial roof covering and screen, as well as the inclusion of a third glass door. These changes are unlikely to create any unreasonable, visual or acoustic privacy impact given its limited size (approximately 3.9m²) and that it has 1.8m high x 1.2m deep privacy screen on each side of the balcony.

 

The development will be conditioned to include an additional privacy screen, 1.8m high and 0.5m wide on the north-west corner of the balcony.

 

The proposed and additional screening will improve privacy between the subject site and the neighbouring properties backyard. It is also noted that there is a degree of existing mutual overlooking from the side elevation of the first floor of the dwelling at 71 Arden Street.

 

Figure 3: Proposed additional privacy screening to rear balcony.

Aerial

Figure 4: Aerial photo of the subject site.

 

 

IMG_20151123_112644

Figure 5: Northern neighbour at 71 Arden Street, viewed from the laneway traversing the northern boundary of the subject site.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject land is located within the B1 Neighbourhood Centre zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed development, being a Section 96 to widen an approved balcony and replace the existing mechanical exhaust, the proposed development is permissible with consent in the zone.

 

Two (2) submissions were received during the exhibition period. The matters raised in the submissions related to 1) privacy, 2) noise and 3) height of the exhaust. These matters have been addressed in the report.

 

The application has been assessed under Section 96(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, having regard for Section 79C (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs. Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Applications No. DA396/A/2015 may be supported.

 

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/396/A/2015 for permission to modify the approved development by increasing the size of second floor deck, installation of mechanical exhaust system, internal alteration to first floor bathroom, removal of two ground floor windows. At 327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly in the following manner:-

 

·          Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

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

A100 – Title Sheet - Revision B

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A101 – Site Plan - Revision I

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A102 – Soil & Water Management - Revision B

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A105 – Street Elevation - Revision B

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A201 – Ground Floor Exist & Demo Plan - Revision F

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A202 – First Floor Exist & Demo Plan

Revision G

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A203 – Roof (Second Floor) Exist & Demo Plan - Revision F

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A302 – First Floor Plan - Revision I

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A303 – Second Floor Plan - Revision K

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A310 Roof Plan - Revision D

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A401 – Elevations - Revision G

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A402 – West Elevation - Revision G

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A403 – East Elevation - Revision B

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A501 – Section - Revision H

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A502 – Section - Revision C

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A503 – Section - Revision B

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A601 Shadows 9am - Revision B

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A602 – Shadows 12pm - Revision B

 

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A603 – Shadows 4pm - Revision B

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

A901 Signage - Revision B

AB

27/08/2015

1/09/2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A221301

14/06/2015

15/06/2015

 


The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered A100 Rev B to A901 Rev B, dated 1 September 2015 and received by Council on 27 October 2015, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by the Section 96 plans dated 28 October 2015 and received by Council on 28 October 2015, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application.

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Title Sheet – A100 Rev C

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Site Plan – A101 Rev K

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Soil & Water Management Plan

A102 Rev C

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Street Elevations – A105 Rev C

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Ground Floor Exist & Demo Plan – A201 Rev H

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

First Floor Exist & Demo Plan – A202 Rev I

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Roof (Second Floor) Exist & Demo Plan – A203 Rev H

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

First Floor Plan – A302 Rev L

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Second Floor Plan – A303 Rev N (Refer to amended plan and condition 2)

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Roof Plan – A310 Rev G

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Elevation – A401 Rev I

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Elevation – A402 Rev I

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Elevation – A403 Rev D

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Section – A501 Rev I

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Section – A502 Rev D

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Section – A503 Rev C

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Shadow Diagrams – A601 Rev C

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Shadow Diagrams – A602 Rev C

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Shadow Diagrams – A603 Rev C

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Details – Signage – A901 Rev C

3D Archpix Drafting

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Specification, Legend & Schedules – M-01 Rev A

Nick Przita & Associates Pty Ltd

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Kitchen Ventilations Equipment Layout at Ground Floor – M-02 Rev A

Nick Przita & Associates Pty Ltd

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Kitchen Ventilations Equipment Layout at Roof Level – M-03 Rev A

Nick Przita & Associates Pty Ltd

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

Kitchen Ventilations Equipment Layout at Side Elevation – M-04 Rev A

Nick Przita & Associates Pty Ltd

28/10/2015

28/10/2015

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

A221301_02

27/10/2015

28/10/2015

 

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:

 

·      Add condition 2(a) to read:

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

 

(a)    A privacy screen having a height of 1.8m above floor must be provided to the west side of the rear balcony and extended a further 500mm to the northern side of the balcony. 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.

 

Details to be provided to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

·      Add Condition No. 11(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) to read:

 

11      (a)    The operation of the premises and all plant/equipment shall not give rise to an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

In this regard, the operation of the plant and equipment shall not give rise to an LAeq, 15 min sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background LA90, 15 min noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A) in accordance with relevant NSW Department of Environment & Climate Change Noise Control Guidelines.

 

(b)   The use of the premises and the operation of plant and equipment shall not give rise to the transmission of a vibration nuisance or damage to other premises.

 

(b)       A report prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council 1 month after occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates that noise and vibration emissions from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, relevant conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations).  The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

 

(c)    All recommendations detailed in section 7 of acoustic report No: NSS 22374 – Final prepared by Noise and Sound Services dated December 2015 shall be complied with. Details of compliance shall form part of the Construction Certificate and be submitted to the certifying Authority for approval.

 

(d)   Provide under awning lighting to improve public safety.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 327 Clovelly Road, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D6/16

 

Subject:                  140 Carrington Road, Randwick (DA/132/2014/B)

Folder No:               DA/132/2014/B

Author:                    City Plan Services, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of Land and Environment Court approval by location of air conditioning unit on roof of building and at ground level on northern and southern sides and reduction in height of lift shaft with cowling to exhaust riser to be 500mm above lift shaft.

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr R Weinstein

Owner:                    Mrs P W Loughman

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview28241.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as the original application was determined by the Land and Environment Court and an objection to the development has been received by a Council employee.

 

1.       Proposal

 

The Section 96 modification to the Land and Environment Court (LEC) approval, is being sought to locate air conditioning units on the roof of building and at ground level on the northern and southern sides, reducing height of lift shaft, with cowling to exhaust riser to be 500mm above the lift shaft.

 

2.       Site

 

The subject site is located at No. 140 Carrington Road, on the western side and elevated above street level. The site is rectangular in shape measuring a total area of 613sqm, with a 14.63m frontage to Carrington Road, a northern side boundary of 42.67m, a rear boundary of 14.11m, and a southern side boundary of 42.67m. The site currently comprises an existing two-storey dwelling with a subfloor garage fronting Carrington Road and other minor structures. The site adjoins to a similar single-detached dwelling to the south, and a four-storey residential flat building to the north. The surrounding streetscape consists of a mixture of single detached dwellings and two to three storey residential flat buildings. The site and adjoining properties are shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Subject site and adjoining properties. (Dwelling now demolished)

 

3.       Submissions

 

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

 

·      17 Glen Avenue, RANDWICK

 

 

Issues

Comments

Height and FSR breach

The proposed will breach the height limit, with height increases to the cowling to the exhaust riser over the lift shaft and the addition of air conditioning units on the roof. Overall, there is only a 0.17m height increase.

 

There is no change to the main roof height of the building. The elements of the proposal in further breach of the height control are relatively minor elements of the building which do not cause any significant impacts, as discussed in this report.

 

The proposed does not involve a change in FSR.

Additional bulk and scale

The areas that breach the relevant height standard in the proposal are limited to the cowling to exhaust riser over the lift shaft and the air conditioning units. These changes involve an overall height increase of 0.17m and overall width increase of 0.75m and do not create a perceptible increase in the height and scale of the building.

Set a precedent for future development

The proposal only relates to minor variations to services for the building which have minor environmental impacts and therefore do not set an unacceptable precedent. 

 

4.       Key Issues

 

4.1     Section 96 (AA) Assessment

 

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

 

4.1.1  Substantially the Same Development

 

The modification does not alter the nature of the approved development. It is considered that the application remains substantially within the scope of the original development and also satisfies the requirements of Section 96 (AA) of the Act.

 

4.1.2  Notification and Consideration of Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. As a result of this notification, one submission was received. The submission raised several issues, which have been identified in Section 3. The submission was considered as part of this assessment.

 

4.2     Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

4.2.1  State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

 

A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004. 

 

Clause 55 of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

The applicant has submitted a new compliant BASIX certificate. The plans have been checked with regard to this new certificate.  A standard condition has been included requiring compliance with this BASIX certificate.

 

4.2.2  Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012

 

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

 

4.3 Height of buildings

The site has a 9.5m maximum building height control. The LEC approved development has a 10.3m height. This S96 proposes a 10.47m height. The height variation of the proposed from the approved is 0.17m and is limited to the cowling to exhaust riser over the lift shaft and the AC units on the roof.

 

Further assessment is carried out under Part 4.3 of this report to ensure the modification complies with Council’s DCP controls for elements on roofs.

 

4.3     Development Control Plans

 

4.3.1  Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RCDCP) 2013 – Part C2 Medium Density Residential

 

(4.2) Roof Design

 

The following control of the RCDCP relates to any services or equipment on the roof:

 

vi) Any services and equipment, such as plant, machinery, ventilation stacks, exhaust ducts, lift overrun and the like, must be contained within the roof form or screened behind parapet walls so that they are not readily visible from the public domain.

 

The roof elements are not screened behind parapet walls, however are considered to be contained within the roof form. The AC units are positioned at the building’s centre, 6m from the nearest boundary. The cowling to exhaust riser over the lift shaft is also positioned at the building’s centre to the northern boundary.

 

The positioning of these elements within the roof form will not result in additional impacts to overshadowing, privacy or views of adjoining sites, with the overall height increase as only 0.17m. These elements will not be visible from the public domain, i.e. from Carrington Road and Glen Avenue, due to the site’s north to south slope.

 

If these elements were to be screened behind parapet walls, the development would be subject to a greater height than the proposed and would not present a better outcome.

 

(7.7) Laundry Facilities and Air Conditioning Units

 

The following controls of the RDCDP relates to air conditioning units:

 

i) Avoid installing within window frames. If installed in balconies, screen by suitable balustrades.

ii) Air conditioning units must not be installed within window frames.

 

The proposed air conditioning units are located on the roof of building and at ground level on northern and southern sides, and therefore compliant with the abovementioned controls.

 

The proposed modifications are considered satisfactory in meeting the relevant controls of the RCDCP.

 

4.4     Section 79C Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

The proposed modifications will continue to comply with the requirements of SEPP:BASIX. Refer to Part 4.2.1 of this report for compliance.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2014

Under the RLEP, the site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential and the proposal is permissible with consent. The proposal is consistent with the aims of the RLEP and the specific objectives of the R3 zone, in that the proposed activity and built form will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape and locality while providing for the housing needs within a medium density residential environment and protecting the amenity of adjoining and neighbouring residents.

 

The proposed does breach the 9.5m height limit control for the site. The LEC approved development has a 10.3m height. This S96 proposes a 10.47m height. The height variation of the proposed from the approved is 0.17m and is limited to the cowling to exhaust riser over the lift shaft and the AC units on the roof. The proposed height will not result in any additional adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and solar access of the adjoining premises and will not significantly contribute to additional scale or density of the development. The majority of the elements that breach the height control are inconsequential when viewed from the public domain in terms of contributing to the bulk and scale of the building.

 

EPA Industrial Noise Policy

The proposed air conditioning units will adhere to the criteria set out in the EPA Industrial Noise Policy, and will satisfy Conditions 90 and 91 of the LEC Consent, with an EPA sound power level of 66 dBA and an Outdoor Sound Level @ 1m of 48dBA (cooling) and 50 dBA (heating). Therefore the proposed will not result in any adverse acoustic impacts to the surrounding area.

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

Not applicable. 

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Refer to Part 4.3.1 of this report for compliance.

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

Not applicable.

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

 

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

The proposed development is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The proposal will not result in adverse social or economic impacts on the locality.

 

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

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

 

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

 

One submission was received and raised several issues (identified in Section 3). The submission was considered as part of this assessment.

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

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

 

5.       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.

 

6.       Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

7.       Conclusion

 

The proposed modification remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted. The modified development by location of air conditioning units on the roof of the building and at ground level on northern and southern sides, and reduction in height of lift shaft with cowling to exhaust riser to be 500mm above lift shaft, will not result in any additional adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The proposed changes do not contribute additional scale or density to the development. The majority of the elements are inconsequential when viewed from the public domain in terms of contributing to the bulk and scale of the building. Accordingly, the subject application is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council, as the consent authority, grant its consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended to modify Development Consent No DA/132/2014/B for permission to Section 96 modification of Land and Environment Court approval by location of air conditioning unit on roof of building and at ground level on northern and southern sides and reduction in height of lift shaft with cowling to exhaust riser to be 500mm above lift shaft. Original Consent: Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building comprising 3x2 bedroom and 3x3 bedroom dwellings, basement car parking for 10 cars, associated site and landscaping works (variations to building height and floor space ratio controls) for 140 Carrington Road, RANDWICK  NSW  2031 in the following manner:-

 

·          Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

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:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

LEC 000 – Site plan

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 100 – Basement plan

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 101 – Ground floor plan

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 102 – First floor plan

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 103 – Second floor plan

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 104 – Roof plan

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 200 – Elevations 1

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 201 – Elevations 2

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 202 – Elevations 3

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 203 – Elevations 4

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 300 – Sections 1

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 301 – Sections 2

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 302 – Sections 3

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 600 – Solar access to living areas – Issue A

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

LEC 700 – Floor area calculations – Issue A

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

14-766/1 – Revised Landscape plan – Issue B

Nicholas Tang Architects

29/7/14

31/7/14

Draft Strata Plans Ref 2336 SP Sheets 1 to 5

Eric Scerri Surveyor Issue B

29/7/14

15/8/14

 

As amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

S962 101 – Ground floor plan

Nicholas Tang Architects

25/6/14

10/9/15

S962 104 – Roof plan

Nicholas Tang Architects

25/8/14

10/9/15

S962 200 – Elevations 1

Nicholas Tang Architects

18/9/14

10/9/15

S962 201 – Elevations 2

Nicholas Tang Architects

18/9/14

10/9/15

S962 202 – Elevations 3

Nicholas Tang Architects

25/6/14

10/9/15

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

532199M_04

19/11/15

19/11/15

 

As amended by the Section 96(B) application plans, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96(B) plans and detailed in the Section 96(B) application, except where amended by Council in red and/or by other conditions of this consent.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D7/16

 

Subject:                  25 Jersey Road, Matraville (DA/643/2015)

Folder No:               DA/643/2015

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Arkivis Design Studio

Owner:                    25 Jersey Road Matraville Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview34629.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Stevenson, Bowen, Neilson and Shurey.

1.     Proposal

 

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing dwelling and associated structures on site, construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works.

 

Figure 1: Proposed Jersey Road frontage

 

Figure 2: Proposed Dive Street frontage

 

2.     Site

 

The site is located on the southern side of Jersey Road on the corner of Jersey Road and Dive Street. The lot is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling house and detached garage.

 

The site has an angled frontage to Jersey Road of 17.135m and a total site area of 472.6m² (as per survey). The site has a depth of between 31.7m and 27.13m and is almost rectangular in shape. The topography of the site is gentle with a gradient of 4% sloping towards the corner of Dive Street and Jersey Road. There is no significant vegetation located on the subject site.

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview34738.png

Figure 3: Subject site (pink)

 

Development in the locality is characterised by low density residential development, with primarily single and two storey dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies located to the south, west and east. Immediately to the north of the subject site is Heffron Park.

 

Figure 4: View to Subject Site (Jersey Road Frontage)

 

Figure 5: View to Subject Site (Dive Street Frontage)

 

3.     Submissions

 

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

 

23 Jersey Road, Matraville

Objection

Comment

·      Objection to the bulk and scale of Unit 25A (rear dwelling).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      Objection to the potential Privacy impacts from Unit 25A (rear dwelling).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      Objection to the potential overshadowing impacts from Unit 25A (rear dwelling).

 

 

 

·      Objection to the proposal not adopting a side by side construction approach with both dwellings facing Jersey Road.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

·      Objection to the non-conforming rear setback of the subject development.

·      The proposed development has a maximum building height and external wall height of 7m; this substantially meets the relevant maximum height controls in the RLEP 2012, which allow for 9.5m maximum building height and meets the RDCP 2013 7m wall height control. With regards to Unit 25A (rear dwelling) being situated adjacent to the objectors rear yard see discussion 4.6 below.

 

·      It is acknowledged that there is the potential for privacy impacts to occur from three windows on the eastern and northern elevations of Dwelling 25A, conditions have been recommended in the development consent requiring privacy measures be placed on these windows.

 

·      It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in some additional overshadowing from what currently exists on site, see discussion 4.4 below.

 

·      Being a corner allotment the site has the flexibility to utilise both the Jersey Road and Dive Street frontages. The RDCP 2013 or RLEP 2012 does not restrict dual occupancies on corner allotments from utilising both frontages. See discussion 4.4 and 4.6 below for discussion with regards to potential impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

·      As stated previously, being a corner allotment the subject site has the allowance of dual street frontages. The RDCP 2013 states that rear setback controls do not apply to corner allotments.

 

4.     Key Issues

 

4.1   Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the DCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions, to achieve the objectives of the DCP Controls. The proposal is subject to Part C1, relating to Low Density Residential developments.

 

4.2   Private Open Space

The RDCP 2013 states that attached dual occupancies with a site area less than 600m² are required to provide a contiguous POS area of at least 5m x 5m for each dwelling. See figure 6 below for a breakdown of contiguous POS area for each dwelling:

Figure 6: Contiguous POS (red = No.25 Jersey Rd, blue = No. 25A Jersey Rd)

 

As seen in figure 6, Dwelling 25 (fronting Jersey Road) meets the relevant numerical controls of the RDCP 2013, Dwelling 25A (fronting Dive Street) does not meet the require 5m x 5m as stated in the RDCP 2013, however it does provide almost 40m² of contiguous POS area with a minimum dimension of 3.5m. It is considered that this space is sufficient in that it will satisfactorily accommodate passive recreational activities for the occupants.

 

The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013 in providing a functional private open space area for each dwelling that offers high amenity for the residents

 

4.3   Front fence

The subject proposal is seeking to construct a maximum 1.2m high rendered masonry front wall; the proposed front wall will run along both the Jersey Road frontage and also the Dive Street frontage with breaks allowing for pedestrian and vehicle access. The majority of the front fence will be less than 1m in height, with the section of wall on the corner of Dive Street and Jersey road reaching a maximum 1.2m in height.

 

The RDCP 2013 states that maximum height of front fencing is limited to 1200mm, as measured from the footpath level, with the solid portion not exceeding 600mm, except for piers. The wall fronting Dive Street replaces an existing 1.8m solid fence and the reduction in height will not result in any adverse impacts on the streetscape. The wall which fronts Jersey Road however is not in keeping with the predominant fence form in the streetscape, nor does it meet the relevant numerical controls. The fence form along Jersey Street is made up of predominantly masonry bases with metal infill panels or palisades, low lying masonry walls or no fences at all. IN to ensure that the Jersey Road fence is consistent with the streetscape and the relevant controls in the RDCP 2013, a condition has been recommended that the fence be a maximum 1200mm with the solid portion not exceeding 600mm.

 

The proposal subject to the recommended conditions will meet the relevant objectives and controls in the RDCP 2013 and will not result in any adverse impacts on the streetscape.

 

4.4   Solar Access

The subject site has a north to south orientation with a gentle 4% gradient to the corner of Jersey Road and Dive Street, the existing dwelling is single storey and its shadow impacts are negligible.

 

Solar access to neighbouring developments

The RDCP 2013 states that north facing living area windows and primary POS areas should receive a minimum of 3 hours direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on the 21st of June.

 

The southern adjoining property No. 2 Dive Street has one window on the northern façade which is located to a bedroom and is currently affected by overshadowing from the detached double garage which has a 1200mm side setback. The proposal seeks to retain the 1200mm side setback and construct a single garage in an almost identical position with a maximum building height 700mm lower than the existing garage. It is considered that the bedroom window is already severely affected by overshadowing from the existing garage and the proposal will not significantly increase the adverse impacts. The proposal is considered acceptable with regards to overshadowing to the southern adjoining neighbour.

 

At the present time the western adjoining property at No. 23 Jersey Road, receives morning access to sunlight to a useable portion of its rear POS until at 12pm when the two storey development overshadows its own back yard. It presently receives this morning access to direct sunlight as the subject site has not been developed and is occupied by a single storey residence.

 

Detailed overshadowing analyses has been carried out, it should be noted that the construction of any two storey development on site will result in increased overshadowing of the property at No. 23 Jersey Road, this is a direct result of the North to South orientation of the site. Figure 7 below shows the difference in overshadowing to the western adjoining property, between a fully compliant dwelling house (with regards to height, F.S.R, setbacks, site coverage) and with identical rear setback as No. 23 Jersey road and the proposed attached dual occupancy.

 

8am (left = Proposed) (right = Compliant Dwelling house)

 

9am (left = Proposed) (right = Compliant Dwelling house)

 

10am (left = Proposed) (right = Compliant Dwelling house)

 

11am (left = Proposed) (right = Compliant Dwelling house)

Figure 7: Shadow Diagrams

 

As seen above, despite the corner allotment configuration of the proposal, the proposed development results in similar overshadowing impacts as a fully compliant dwelling house maintaining the predominant rear setback pattern. In addition the proposal will not result in any additional overshadowing to the western adjoining property after 12pm, thus allowing it to received direct sunlight in the afternoon period between 12pm and 4pm. The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives and controls in the RDCP 2013.

 

Solar access to proposed development

The RDCP 2013 states that the private open space of proposed development must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. It should be noted that the POS of the rear dwelling No.25A will receive the required 3 hours direct sunlight to a useable portion of POS, however the dwelling fronting Jersey Road does not meet this numerical requirement.

 

As a result of the corner allotment configuration as well as the north to south orientation, overshadowing to the courtyards of the subject site is unavoidable and overshadowing from a compliant; more conventional side by side attached dual occupancy would still result in significant overshadowing and non-compliant solar access for one of the dwellings.

 

To help mitigate the potential impacts on solar access, the proposal has allowed for a 1.8m side setback along the western boundary as well as maintaining the adjoining garage structure (3.7m in width) as a single level development. In addition the garage structure has been excavated within the existing ground level and provided with a skillion roof with a low point of 1.8m above ground level, See Figure 8 below.  

 

Figure 8: Garage with a skillion roof to allow for maximum solar access

 

The POS area of the front dwelling (No. 25 Jersey Road) will receive 2 hours direct sunlight between 12pm and 2pm to a minimum 11m² area, it is considered that this area would be capable of supporting passive recreation activities. In addition it should be noted that this outcome is the worst case scenario for the site with the solar access determined on the 21st June (Winter Solstice) and solar access achieved by the POS throughout the rest of the year would be much higher and for a longer period of time.

                                                   

It is considered that whilst the proposal does not meet the numerical control requiring 3 hours direct sunlight for the northern dwelling fronting Jersey Road, it is considered that the proposal which is well within the relevant controls with regards to F.S.R, setbacks, building height, wall height and site coverage will meet the objectives of the RDCP 2013 and satisfactorily serve the occupants throughout the year.

 

4.5   Garages/Driveway

The proposed driveways and associated garages, one fronting Dive Street and one fronting Jersey Road have a maximum width of 3.1m for the driveway and 3.7m for the garage structures which exceeds the allowable 3m under the RDCP 2013; however it is considered that the 100mm and 700mm non-compliances will not result in any adverse impacts on the streetscape character. Both Dive Street and Jersey Road are dominated by large double driveways and double garage structures with widths of over 6m, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the streetscape, will not dominate the property frontage and meets the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013.

 

 

4.6   Rear Setbacks

The proposal, as stated previously is located on the corner of Jersey Road and Dive Street, the RDCP 2013 states that the minimum rear setback must be 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser. (Note: Rear setback controls do not apply to corner allotments.) As per the RDCP 2013 there are no numerical rear setback controls for corner allotments and they are subject to a merit assessment.

 

The proposed rear attached garage structure (fronting Dive Street) is setback 1201mm from the rear boundary; this is identical to the existing detached garage on site. The first floor level of dwelling 25A has a setback of 4.61m from the rear boundary. It has been demonstrated previously in discussion 4.4 that the proposed rear setback will not result in any significant increase in overshadowing to the adjoining properties. The proposal is considered acceptable and addresses the corner allotment with a modern design; the proposal is acceptable within the visual catchment of the streetscape and will not result in any adverse impacts on the streetscape character.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and does not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts upon the surrounding locality. The proposal remains within the bounds of the applicable State and Local planning framework.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Compliance Report. 

 

Recommendation

 

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. 643/2015 for the demolition of an existing dwelling, construction of a new two storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works, at No. 25 Jersey Road, Matraville 2036, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Nonstandard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The following 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:

 

·      Study Window to Dwelling 25A on the western elevation at first floor level;

·      Bedroom window to Dwelling 25A on the western elevation at first floor level; and

·      Bedroom window to Dwelling 25A on the northern elevation at first floor level.

 

b.     The fence on the Jersey Road street alignment is to be a maximum height of 1200mm and be designed so that the solid portion of the fence does not exceed 600mm, measured from the footpath level. The remainder of the fence shall be at least 30%% open, to maintain reasonable levels of amenity to the adjoining residential development and the streetscape.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 25 Jersey Road, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D8/16

 

Subject:                  2 Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay (DA/717/2015)

Folder No:               DA/717/2015

Author:                    Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                 Removal of existing solar photovoltaic panels from southern part of roof at Prince Henry Community Centre, installation of 70 new photovoltaic panels on northern part of roof and 30 new photovoltaic panels on southern part of roof (Heritage Item and Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Randwick City Council

Owner:                    Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview25093.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 is the subject site is owned by Randwick City Council.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the installation of 70 new photovoltaic (PV) solar panels on the rear (east facing) skillion section of the northern roof of the Prince Henry Centre on the corner of Pine Avenue and Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay. The solar panels would be attached to a frame and tilted to the north at a maximum of 300 mm above the roof level. Also, the existing solar panels on the southern roof are to be replaced with 30 new PV solar panels, and mounted flush with the north facing plane of the pitched section (refer to Figure 1).

 

30 replacement photovoltaic cells southern roof northern roof N 70 new photovoltaic cells

 

Site

 

The subject site is located within the wider Prince Henry Hospital Site, which has been gradually developed since 2003 from its former hospital use to a new residential suburb. The subject site is legally described as Lot 73 in DP 270427, and the street address is No. 2 Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay.

 

The Prince Henry Centre is a community facility owned and managed by Council, and contains an auditorium and multi-purpose function area, which is used for weddings, corporate functions, community events and live performances. The building is generally one level however, the basement parking provides a second storey scale to the east due to the slope of the site. The curtilage of the building is extensively landscaped, and includes an at-grade car park on its southern side.

 

The building has two higher metal roof elements over the auditorium and multi-purpose areas and a lower green roof form. The larger of the metal roofs is positioned to the north and pitched at its western end with a skillion section behind that slopes to the east. The smaller metal roof to the south is pitched at its northern end and slopes down to the south. A line of solar panels is positioned across the north facing plane of the pitched roof section of the smaller roof, which power the building’s hot water system. The roof over the western and central sections of the building is a concrete slab with a planted green roof above (refer to Figure 1).

 

East facing roof planePine AvenueSmaller metal roof to the south and existing photovoltaic cells on the northern roof planeroof pitch which obstructs views from the west

Figure 1View of the Prince Henry Centre from Pine Avenue

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage Impact

 

The Prince Henry Centre is located within the Prince Henry Site, which is listed on the State Heritage Register (SHR) under the NSW Heritage Act 1977 for its Aboriginal, natural, landscape and built heritage values. The Prince Henry Centre is also located within the heritage item known as the Prince Henry Site and Coast Hospital Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) under Schedule 5 Part 1 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012), and the Prince Henry Hospital Site Conservation Area under Schedule 5 Part 2 of RLEP 2012.

The Prince Henry Centre is a modern building with no contribution to the heritage character of the wider Prince Henry Hospital Site. Notwithstanding, the applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Statement (HIS), prepared by Weir Phillips Heritage to assess the impact of the proposal on the heritage significance of the HCA.

 

The applicant’s HIS acknowledges the replacement solar panels on the smaller southern roof element would be visible from the historic precinct to the north of the site, and various other vantage points in the HCA. These solar panels would be mounted flush with the roof plane and joined together in a grid pattern. Therefore it would be viewed as part of the overall roof form. The HIS also states the new solar panels on the larger northern roof would only be partially visible when the building is viewed from the north due to topography. The applicant’s HIS concludes there would be no adverse impacts in terms of reflectivity given the panels are designed with an anti-reflective layer to absorb sunlight. The HIS also notes there are other new buildings within the precinct which have roof mounted solar panels visible from the public domain and heritage items in the HCA.

 

Council’s Heritage Advisor reviewed the applicant’s HIS, and considers the PV solar panels would not be prominent when viewed from the surrounding area due to topography and vegetation. Council’s Heritage advisor also considers there would be no adverse heritage impact on the open landscape setting or views to and from surrounding built and natural elements within the HCA. The detailed comments provided by Council’s Heritage Advisor are outlined in Section 5 of the Compliance Report.

 

The proposed works require a separate permit under the NSW Heritage Act 1977 because the site is within the wider Prince Henry Site, which is listed on the SHR. The application is therefore Integrated Development in accordance with Section 91 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act). Council subsequently referred the application to the NSW Heritage Council seeking its General Terms of Approval (GTA).  In a letter dated 16 December 2015, the Heritage Council issued its GTA, including the requirement for a separate approval of a Section 60 permit under the NSW Heritage Act 1977, prior to commencement of work, and the provision of a screen around the new solar panels on the larger northern roof to mitigate its visual impact on the surrounding area. On 18 January 2016 discussions were held with officers in the Heritage Division of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) in relation to the requirement for a screen. Heritage Division officers advised that further consultation can be undertaken during the Section 60 permit application stage, and if it can be demonstrated that a visual screen is unnecessary, then a Section 60 permit can be issued without this requirement. The GTA issued by the Heritage Council is included in the recommended conditions of consent.

 

The proposal is acceptable in terms of its heritage impact.

 

Visual Impact

 

The visual impact of the installation of PV solar panels of the roof of the existing building is a key issue given the highly visible coastal location of the site.

 

Northern Roof

 

The primary approach to the site is from the west along Pine Avenue. When viewed from the west the visual impact associated with the solar panels would be obstructed by the northern roof pitch of the roof. Also, the solar panels would be setback from the edge of the roof up to 2 m, and when viewed from the immediate curtilage of the building, and the adjoining Nurses War Memorial Chapel to the north, the views would be obstructed by the roof parapet (refer to Figure 2). The potential views of the solar panels from the golf course and the foreshore are limited due to the lower topography to the south and east of the site. The new solar panels are more likely to be viewed from elevated locations to the northwest such as the upper floors of residential flat building on the corner of Pine Avenue and Lister Avenue. However, the panels would read as part of the roof form and the visual impact would be negligible due to distance separation. The solar panels would be tilted a maximum of 300 mm above the roof, and would not detract from its sleek design or increase visual clutter when viewed from distant locations. It is considered that a visual screen around the solar panels as recommended by the Heritage Division of OEH is unnecessary because it would introduce a new building element that only serves to highlight the roof form.

 

Southern Roof

 

The replacement solar panels on the southern smaller roof element would be limited due to intervening buildings, existing vegetation and topography, and only partly visible from the north and west. The solar panels would be mounted flush with the roof and viewed as part of the overall roof form similar to the existing situation. The replacement solar panels would therefore not result in any adverse visual impact on the surrounding area.  

 

Nurses War Memorial ChapelPine Avenueeast facing northern main roof – proposed location of 70 solar panels

Figure 2View of the Prince Henry Centre from the front of the Chapel to the north

 

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

 

The cost of the project is $50,609.

 

Conclusion

 

The installation of PV solar panels on the roof of the Prince Henry Centre is consistent with Council’s objective to provide ecologically sustainable design (ESD) measures for new buildings, including solar energy.

 

No objection was raised by Council’s Heritage Advisor or the Heritage Council in relation to potential impacts on the setting or the views to and from nearby heritage items, or the heritage significance of the HCA. An assessment of the visual impacts indicates the proposed solar panels on the northern roof would not be readily visible from the surrounding area due to its intervening roof pitch, topography and vegetation. The setback to the roof edge and the building parapet would further reduce views of the solar panels. The replacement solar panels on the southern smaller roof element would be mounted flush with the roof, and viewed as part of the overall roof form. It is considered that the proposed solar panels integrate with the existing roof form of the Prince Henry Centre, and would not result in any adverse visual impact on the surrounding area, or detract from the scenic quality of the foreshore.

 

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. 717/2015 for Removal of existing solar photovoltaic panels from southern part of roof at Prince Henry Community Centre, installation of 70 new photovoltaic panels on northern part of roof and 30 new photovoltaic panels on southern part of roof, at No. 2 Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay, subject to the following standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 2 Coast Hospital Road, Little Bay

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D9/16

 

Subject:                  19 Beach Street, Clovelly (DA/739/2015)

Folder No:               DA/739/2015

Author:                    Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                 Construction of hardstand car park space, bin enclosure and landscaping to front of existing dwelling with associated works to front of dwelling and fence

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr J H Holmes

Owner:                    Mr J H Holmes & Ms S D Hoyt

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview54657.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 consideration as a Council employee resides in close proximity to the subject site.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal is for the construction of a hardstand car space, bin enclosure and landscaping at the front of the existing dwelling house, and associated works to the front verandah and boundary fence at No. 19 Beach Street, Clovelly (refer to Figure 1).

 

entryFront of the dwelling houseLandscape planterBin enclosureNew drivewayStreet tree to be removedcarspace

Figure 1Proposed car space layout in the front setback

 

Site and surrounds

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Beach Street, approximately 35 m north of its intersection with Clovelly Road.  The streetscape is predominantly characterised by semi-detached dwelling houses with off-street parking in the front setback, including carports and hardstand car spaces (refer to Figures 2 and 3).

 

No. 11No. 9No. 7

Figure 2 – View showing existing dwellings at Nos. 7, 9 and 11 Beach Street with car spaces in the front setback

 

Figure 3 – View showing the car space in the front setback at No. 13 Beach Street incorporated into the front verandah

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

Compliance with Council’s Planning Controls

 

Car Parking

Clause 6.2 of DCP 2013 permits an uncovered single car space in the front setback where parking behind the building alignment is not feasible due to site constraints and the absence of a rear lane or a secondary street frontage. In this circumstance no parking can be provided behind the front alignment of the dwelling house due to the constraints of the existing building and the narrow configuration of the site. The proposed hardstand car space is therefore forward of the building line and partially incorporated within the front verandah. This is considered to be acceptable given that the residential streetscape is characterised by off-street parking in the front setback (refer to Figures 2 and 3). The alterations to the front verandah would not detract from the individual character and asymmetrical appearance of the semi-detached dwellings, and the parking layout integrates part of the existing landscape to soften the appearance of the hardstand area. The proposal is therefore considered to satisfy the DCP requirements for a car space forward of the building alignment.

 

Clause 6.7 of DCP 2013 requires a car space with minimum dimension of 5.4 m x 2.5 m. The proposed car space is 5.1 m x 2.7 m and therefore does not comply with the minimum 5.4 length. Notwithstanding, Council has resolved to permit small car parking spaces with a minimum length of 5 m, which complies with the Australian Standard. The length of the proposed car space is supported by Council’s Development Engineer, subject to the width of the space being increased from 2.7 m to 3 m in accordance with the Australian Standard. A condition to this effect is included in the recommended conditions of approval. The site has sufficient area in the front setback to safely accommodate a parking space.

 

Permeable Surface Area

Clause 2.4 of DCP 2013 requires a minimum of 20 per cent of the site area or 55 sqm as permeable or deep soil area. The majority of the rear private open space is paved and deep soil is limited to the rear boundary and the front setback. The existing situation does not comply with the permeable surface control. The proposed car space would result in a reduction of permeable surface of approximately 3 sqm, equating to a total of 20 sqm or 7 per cent, which represents a variation of 13 per cent or 35 sqm below Council’s control.   The objectives of the permeable surface control seek to moderate climatic conditions, and improve natural rainwater filtration. The design of the hardstand car space incorporates some of the existing deep soil vegetation in the front setback to soften the appearance of the hardstand area. In this circumstance the provision of a permeable surface is not practical given the hardstand needs to be elevated above natural ground level due to the slope of the site in order to meet the safe access requirements from the footpath in accordance with the BCA. 

 

Tree Removal

The proposal would require the removal of a Coastal Banksia street tree to make way for the new driveway. Council’s Landscape Officer considers its loss would not be a major issue for the streetscape or the local environment on the basis that several advanced replacement trees of the same species can be replanted in the street or surrounding area, subject to the applicant covering all costs. A condition to this effect is included in the recommended conditions of approval. Two mature Golden Cane Palms in the front yard would also need to be removed however, Council’s Landscape Officer has advised they are not significant, and can be removed to accommodate the hardstand car space.

 

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

 

There is no feasible alternative to the provision of parking on the subject site other than in the front setback due to the constraints of the existing dwelling house and lack of rear lane or secondary street frontage. The configuration of the driveway and parking layout generally complies with Council’s requirements for residential car spaces in the front setback. Importantly, the streetscape in the immediate vicinity of the site is characterised by car parking forward of the building line, and the proposal would not result in any adverse visual impacts on the amenity of the street.

 

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. 739/2015 for construction of a hardstand car space, bin enclosure and landscaping at the front of the existing dwelling house, and associated works to the front verandah and boundary fence, at No. 19 Beach Street, Clovelly, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 19 Beach Street, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D10/16

 

Subject:                  41 Pozieres Avenue, Matraville (DA/800/2015)

Folder No:               DA/800/2015

Author:                    Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of the existing dwelling, construction of a 2 storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Arkivis Design Studio

Owner:                    41 Pozieres Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview62798.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 the Planning Committee for determination as one of the Directors of the company that owns the property is a Randwick City Councillor.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The subject applications seeks consent for the demolition of the existing single storey fibro dwelling and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy.

The dual occupancy will be constructed of brick, with a balcony to the front and rear of the property. Finishes include exposed brick and rendered and painted walls. Balcony balustrades will be constructed of glass, rendered finish and slatted screens.

 

The proposal has a side setback of 1.2m from the side boundary, a front setback of 7.8m and rear setback of 11.5m.

 

Each dwelling includes a single driveway and garage.

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as 41 Pozieres Avenue, Matraville and is formally described as Lot 4 in DP 251799. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a 15.24m frontage to Pozieres Avenue in the north and rear boundary of 15.24m to the south.

 

The site has a depth of 36.58m and forms a total area of 557.4m². The subject site currently comprises a single storey fibro dwelling with tile roof. Vehicular access is provided to the site via the western boundary. The site is generally flat, with a slight slope from the rear to front (refer to survey plan).

 

The adjoining properties to the east and west of the subject site are developed with double storey residential dwellings.

 

IMG_20160121_161700

Figure 1: Existing Dwelling, 41 Pozieres Avenue, Matraville. s

 

 

 

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.

 

Key Issues

 

Car parking & Access

The DCP states that parking facilities must be located behind the front façade alignment, either integrated within the dwelling or positioned to the side of the dwelling.

 

The proposed garages are located in front of the building line with adjacent planter boxes and a landscaped front setback.

 

However, this is considered reasonable given:

 

·          There are no other feasible locations for the car parking given the building design and narrow lot;

·          The garage is incorporated into the building design and mostly setback behind the front façade;

·          Landscaping is incorporated in the front setback;

·          The development does not adversely affect the amenity of the street;

·          The garage does not pose a risk to pedestrian safety; and

·          Does not require significant contributory landscape elements.

 

There is also an existing precedence of garages built forward of the front façade, refer to Figure 2 and 3.

 

IMG_20160121_161435

Figure 2: Existing precedence of garage in front of building line, Menin Street, Matraville.

 

IMG_20160121_161550

Figure 3: Existing precedence of garage in front of building line, 31 Pozieres Avenue, Matraville.

 

Additional Provisions for Attached Dual Occupancies

The DCP states that the main entry to a dwelling must be located on the front elevation facing the street and be readily identifiable, unless the site has a narrow frontage width.

 

The proposed development utilizes a side entrances for both dwellings, each entrance is setback about 2.5m from the front façade.

 

These side entrances are generally considered to be reasonable given:

 

·          The narrow lot width;

·          Efficient internal layout; and

·          Living areas are located to the front of the dwelling on both the ground and first level which provides passive surveillance over the street.

 

Solar Access & Overshadowing

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.

 

The rear private open space of the eastern dwelling will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight on 21 June. However, the private open space of the western dwelling will receive less than 3 hours of direct sunlight on 21 June.

 

It should be noted that currently this area receives limited direct sunlight due to the site orientation and the neighbouring properties overshadowing the site in the morning and evening. Further, the proposed dwellings will overshadow the POS at midday which is generally unavoidable. Therefore, this variation is generally considered to be reasonable.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject land is located within the R2 Low Density Residential zone under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. This development application seeks to demolition the existing single storey fibro dwelling and construct a two storey attached dual occupancy. The development is permissible with consent.

 

No submissions were received during the exhibition period. The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives and generally consistent with the DCP.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (a) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs. Following detailed assessment it is considered that Development Applications No. DA800/2015 may be supported.

 

 

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. DA800/2015 for demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a dual occupancy, at No. 41 Pozieres Avenue, Matraville subject to the following standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance report - 41 Pozieres Avenue, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D11/16

 

Subject:                  11 Liguria Street Maroubra (DA/514/2006/D)

Folder No:               DA/514/2006/D

Author:                    Gabrielle Coleman, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by adding a glass balustrade to the south and eastern elevations of the upper floor balcony and changes to window and door openings on elevations.

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mrs G Constantinou

Owner:                    Mrs G Constantinou

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This Section 96 (2) application is referred to the Planning Committee Meeting as the original application was determined at a Council meeting.

 

1.  Proposal

 

This section 96 (2) application seeks to modify the original consent with the following works:

 

Basement floor level

·      Southern elevation - the door has been moved and two new windows have been added to the store room and laundry.

 

First floor level

·      Northern elevation – Reduce the size of window 16 and window 2

·      Eastern elevation – Join the two approved windows to the stairwell to one 970mm W x 5400mm H  window with obscured glazing

·      Southern elevation – delete sliding door and provide a new window 1820mm W x 1200mm H

·      Replace the approved 1000mm high solid balustrade with glass to the southern and eastern elevation of the rear first floor balcony

·      Delete planter box on the eastern side of the first floor rear balcony

 

2.  Site

The subject site is located on the southern side of Liguria Street and is currently under construction.  The site is slightly irregular shaped and slopes steeply from the front of the site to the south east corner, with an overall height difference of 3.03m. The subject site has a frontage width of 12.19m, an eastern side boundary depth of 40.85m, a western boundary depth of 40.71m and has an overall site area of 490.37sqm. 

The neighbouring the property to the east, 15 Liguria Street is a single storey dwelling, to the west, 9 Liguria Street, is a two storey dwelling and to the rear the property adjoins the yards of dwellings of 1 and 1A Mermaid Avenue. The surrounding area is residential in character and consists predominantly of detached residential dwellings that range from 1 to 3 storeys.

3.  Submissions

 

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

 

Issue

Comment

9 Liguria Street Maroubra

 

The stairwell window with obscured glazing does not ameliorate the impact of additional light spill to 9 Liguria Street.

Should Council approve the additional window to the stairwell, a condition of consent should be put in place that specifically requires obscured glazing on the stairwell that prohibits any visual connection to 9 Liguria Street. 

 

 

The plan proposes that the whole window be fixed obscure glazing.

 

Concerns are raised regarding the disparity in materials from the balustrade on the western elevation as it would give rise to introduce glazing to the western balustrade in the future.

 

The balustrade on the western wall was approved for a 1000mm high solid balustrade with a 1600mm high privacy screen above and will protect the privacy of 9 Liguria Street. Any changes to the western balustrade would need to be subject to another Section 96 modification. 

1A Mermaid Avenue Maroubra

 

The movement of door 1 and the addition of 2 new windows on the south western elevation will allow further views onto my property.

 

 

 

The additional windows are to the laundry and are to the basement level store room and laundry for additional light. These are low service rooms and will not cause unreasonable additional overlooking into 1A Mermaid Avenue.

 

The widening of W8 will impact 1A Mermaid Avenue and 15 and 17 Liguria Street.

 

Window 8 is not proposed to be reduced and will remain 2900mm in width as per the approved plans. There will be no further privacy impacts from this modification. 

 

The new polycarbonate roof over the existing eastern timber framed pergola will allow the applicant to sit outside, put out tables and chairs and further impinge on the privacy of 1A Mermaid Avenue and the surrounding neighbours.

 

The addition of a polycarbonate roof over the approved timber pergola will not significantly increase the use of the balcony given that other non-fixed structures such as umbrellas are currently available to the occupants.

Changing the balustrade material to glass on the southern and eastern elevations will allow for overlooking into the rear yards of adjoining dwellings and the dwelling at 1A Mermaid Avenue.

 

Deleting the planter box off the eastern side of the balcony will further impact on the privacy of 1A Mermaid Avenue and the surrounding properties.

The proposal seeks to retain the same 1m high balustrade but change to clear glass and delete the planter box. This is not considered unreasonable given that coastal views will tend to be the focus of the view rather than the yards of the adjoining dwellings.

 

4.  Section 96 Amendment

 

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

 

4.1     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 scope of modifications includes modifications to window and door openings, replacing the material of the upper floor balcony with glass and deleting a planter box on the eastern elevation. The proposed section 96 modification does not involve any substantial changes to the approved building envelope and will remain consistent with the original consent.

 

5.  Key Issues

 

5.1     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The proposal is consistent with the general aims of the Randwick LEP 2012 and the specific zoning objectives, in that the development is compatible with the residential environment of the locality and will not detract from the desirable elements of the streetscape. The application will not result in any undue adverse impacts to the amenity of surrounding residential development. The proposal will not result in any increase to the height of the dwelling or the approved floor space ratio.

 

5.2     Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP) 2013

 

·      Sub-section 4.4 Roof Design and Features

 

The objectives of roof design and features prescribe that roof design integrates with the form, proportions and façade composition of the building. The modification seeks to add a polycarbonate roof over the approved timber framed pergola to assist with stormwater drainage. There will be no adverse impact from this modification as it is a minor addition to the approved pergola structure. The roof design will integrate with the form of the approved built form and not result in any adverse impacts to adjoining dwellings.

 

·      Sub-section 5.3 Visual Privacy

 

Window and door openings

 

Control (i) and (ii) relate to windows requiring that all habitable room windows must belocated to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows and must also be oriented away from the adjacent dwellings where possible.

 

Windows on northern elevation - The application seeks to reduce the size of window 16 and window 2 in width to the north elevation in the upper floor lounge room. Windows 16 and 2 are oriented towards the street and will therefore have no additional potential to cause overlooking into the adjoining dwellings.

 

Windows on eastern elevation - The application also seeks to raise the sill height of windows 3 and 6 on the eastern elevation facing 9 Liguria Street. This will reduce the area of the window, and thus reduce the potential for overlooking. Window 5 to the stairwell was approved as two separate windows on the ground and first floor. The modification seeks to join the two windows to create one window 970mm wide that runs the 5.4m from ground to first floor. The window is proposed to be fixed with obscured glazing and this is considered an effective measure to ameliorate overlooking into 9 Liguria Street. Therefore, the proposed modifications to the windows on the eastern elevation are considered to minimise overlooking to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

Window and door openings on southern elevation - The application seeks to delete the approved sliding door to the first floor balcony and replaced with window 17. This will not cause any additional overlooking given that this was already approved as an opening.

 

The additional two windows 14 and 15 to the basement floor level are to a storage room and laundry. These are non-habitable rooms and would not be of high use by dwelling occupants. The additional openings are essentially for sunlight and are not considered to cause any additional impact on the privacy of 1A Mermaid Avenue.

 

Window on western elevation - Window 8 to the dining room is proposed be reduced in area, therefore further reducing the opportunity for overlooking.

 

Overall, the proposed window changes are predominantly to existing approved windows, with the addition of two new windows to the laundry and store room. These modifications have been assessed as having no adverse impact on the privacy of adjoining dwellings and therefore meet the controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

First floor rear balcony

 

Approval was granted for the upper floor balcony with 1000mm high horizontal timber slats to the balustrades. The subject application seeks to replace this with clear glass on the southern and eastern elevations and delete a planter box 1000mm high that runs 2.5m along the eastern elevation.

 

With the topography of the land sloping down from north to south, there is great opportunity for properties along Mermaid Avenue and Liguria Street to maximise views towards the coast. As a result, almost all these properties have rear upper floor balconies that result in mutual overlooking between dwellings and private open spaces. The approved planter box and timber style balustrade were approved at 1m high and had a minor impact on the ability for building occupants to overlook adjoining properties. It is common amongst properties within the immediate vicinity of the site to have clear glass balustrades to the balconies so as to the maximum coastal views which are primary to that of mutual overlooking.

 

Furthermore, with a clear glass balustrade, the approved planter box 1m high by 500mm wide, would only have a minor impact on the ability for building occupants to overlook the rear yard of adjoining dwellings. Given that there is an established mutual overlooking between properties in this locality and there is a desire to maximise coastal views, it is not considered unreasonable to delete the planter box to the south eastern corner of the balcony.

 

6.  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.

 

7.  Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

8.  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

 

A.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/514/2006/D by adding a glass balustrade to the south and eastern elevations of the upper floor balcony and changes to window and door openings on elevation at No. 11 Liguria Street Maroubra in the following manner:

 

·    Amend Condition 1 to read:

1.       The development must be implemented substantially in accordance with the plans numbered 06/0015-1B, 06/0015-2B, 06/0015-3B and 06/0015-4B, dated 18 November 2006, and received by Council on 4 December 2006, the application form and on any supporting information received with the application, as amended by:

 

§  The Section 96 “A” plans drawn by Archman Design Services, numbered 06/015B S96 and received by Council on 28 November 2007, and the plan numbered 06/015B S96 and received by Council on 7 December 2007,

 

§  The Section 96 “B” plan numbered 08/11GNC, dated 13 November 2008 and received by Council on 13 November 2008, and

 

§  The Section 96 “C” plans numbered 06/0015-1C, 06/0015-2C, 06/0015-3C and 06/0015-4C, dated 3 December 2012 and received by Council on 5 December 2012,

 

§  The Section 96 “D” plans listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn By

Dated

015/0022-01

GM

26/11/2015

015/0022-02

GM

26/11/2015

015/0022-03

GM

26/11/2015

 

 

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

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 11 Liguria Street, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D12/16

 

Subject:                  359 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/753/2015)

Folder No:               DA/753/2015

Author:                    Gabrielle Coleman, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Extension of balcony at rear of existing dwelling with addition of a roof and exterior stairs to balcony

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Superior Designs

Owner:                    T R Morelli, S Morelli

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to the Planning Committee Meeting at the request of Councillors Neilson, Seng and Andrews.

 

1.  Proposal

 

The proposal involves the following works:

 

·      The existing rear balcony is 5030mm x 960mm. The proposal seeks to extend this balcony to a total depth of 2960mm.

·      Extension of the roof over the extent of the proposed balcony

·      New external stairs from balcony to ground floor

 

Figure 1. The existing rear balcony as viewed from the rear yard of the subject site.

 

2.  Site

 

The subject site is located on the south eastern side of Maroubra Road and is one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings with 357 Maroubra Road. The site has a frontage width of 7.62m, side boundary depth of 40.225m and total site area of 298m2.

 

Neighbouring the property to the north is a free standing dwelling, to the south is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling and to the east is Nicol Avenue. The immediate locality is predominantly low density residential in nature and consists of detached dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings.

 

3.  Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. Two submissions were received and are summarised below:

 

 

 

 

Issue

Comment

357 Maroubra Road

 

The decking will block the afternoon sunlight to the garden. Further diminution of sunlight is totally unacceptable after the 1970s brick extension has resulted in significant overshadowing.

 

 

 

The proposal will result in additional overshadowing to the rear yard between 8am and 4pm during mid-winter. Whilst the overshadowing impact meets the provisions of Council’s DCP, a condition of consent has been included to reduce the depth of the balcony and associated roof to 2.5m to lesser the impact of overshadowing given the requirements of the rear setback control in the DCP. 

 

Directly violate the privacy by allowing direct overlooking into the first floor, balcony and garden.

 

Privacy screens would have to be installed along the 3m extension of decking but this would further block sunlight access.

 

It is recognised that the extension of the balcony will cause additional overlooking into the rear yard of 357 Maroubra Road. Therefore, 1.6m high privacy screens have been included as conditions of consent to be added to the northern and southern edges of the proposed balcony. The reduced depth of the balcony and privacy screens will still allow sunlight access to the rear yard of 357 Maroubra Road.

 

The subject dwelling would be fully exposed to hours of noise and music would prevent enjoyment of the garden and living in the house, given the promity to rear habitable rooms of the property.

 

The elevated decking does not directly adjoin any rooms as the building line extends 6.6m from the adjoining semi and so the acoustic impact would be minimal on habitable rooms at 357 Maroubra Road. It should be noted that there is a 3m deep rear deck at 357 Maroubra Road built flush against the common boundary and directly adjoins the window of bedroom 2 at the subject property and as such there is already a close relationship between the neighbouring buildings.

The decking will block the small remaining view to the north and east, especially if a 3m long privacy screen is installed.

The remaining land views are glimpses of distant houses but is almost wholly obscured by existing trees. The proposal will result in a negligible impact on distant district views.

361 Maroubra Road

 

The decking proposed by our neighbour will block the afternoon sunlight to our garden for most of the times.

 

 

361 Maroubra Road is to the north of the subject property and will therefore experience no overshadowing from the proposal at mid-winter. 

 

Any one on the proposed decking will look directly into the ground and first floors of the house and the rear garden. Privacy screens would have to be installed along the 3m extension of the proposed decking, but this would be totally unacceptable for will create more blocking of sunlight.

A 1.6m high privacy screen has been conditioned along the full extent of the northern and southern edge of the proposed balcony to protect the privacy of adjoining neighbours. This will not further block sunlight to 361 Maroubra Road as the subject site is to the south.

 

The further extension of 3m of decking with a roof will have a dramatic effect on the view currently being enjoyed.

The view loss assessment shows that the views facing south to what would be the ocean, are wholly obscured by existing trees. Therefore, the proposal is considered to have a negligible impact on any potential views facing south.

 

4.  Key Issues

 

4.1     Rear Setbacks

Sub-section 3.3.3 Rear Setbacks requires the following:

 

Control (i) the minimum rear setback must be 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser.

 

The site allotment depth is 40.225m and the minimum required rear setback is 8m. The existing rear setback is 11.8m and the proposal will result in a rear setback of 9.8m.  It is considered that the extension to the balcony could still provide increased rear setback for the reasons below.

 

Control (ii) provide increased rear setbacks over and above the aforementioned minimum requirements, or demonstrate that this is not required, having regard to the following matters:

 

·      Existing predominant rear setback line in the subject urban block. 

The urban block bound by Maroubra Road, Nicol Avenue and Nicol Lane is made up of twelve dwellings varying in allotment depths of 28.98m to 46.6m. The table below shows that amongst the lots with a depth of approximately 40m, the predominant rear setback ranges between 15m and 19m, with the average rear setback being 16.34m for the whole urban block. The existing setback of 11.8m to 359 Maroubra Road already varies the predominant rear setback line and the proposed balcony will further vary this. Therefore, the proposal should provide an increased rear setback above the minimum numerical requirements to minimise the protrusion into the rear setback line.

 

Figure 2. Subject urban block bound by Maroubra Road, Nicol Ave and Nicol Lane.

 

Address

Boundary depth

Rear setback

347 Maroubra Road

46.6m

22.55m

349-349A Maroubra Road

43.42m

21.84m

351 Maroubra Road

41.6m

15.74m

353 Maroubra Road

41.2m

23.45m

355 Maroubra Road

40.76m

20.67m

357 Maroubra Road

40.66m

19.67m

359 Maroubra Road (subject site)

40.66m

Proposed 9.8m

361 Maroubra Road

39m

19.04m

363 Maroubra Road

36.47m

20.27m

365 Maroubra Road

34.43m

11.67m

367 Maroubra Road (irregular corner allotment where rear setback controls do not apply)

28.98m

4.84m

 

·      The need to achieve reasonable view sharing with the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

The potential district and water views from the neighbouring dwellings are wholly obscured by existing vegetation. Therefore, the extended balcony will have minimal impact on view sharing between the subject site and immediate neighbouring dwellings. Further, as the proposal is to the rear, there are no views to the public domain that are affected by the proposal.

 

·      The need to adequately protect the privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings. 

A condition of consent has been included that the extended balcony must have privacy screens along both the northern and southern edges. This will maintain privacy to the private open space of the adjoining dwellings.

 

The proposed extension of the balcony and roof will reduce solar access to the rear yard of 357 Maroubra Road as the rear yard of the adjoining 357 Maroubra Road. Whilst it complies with the numerical control for solar access a reduction in the depth of the balcony is warranted given the significant extension of the existing building beyond the predominant building line. A condition is included requiring the proposed balcony and associated roof cover to be reduced to a maximum depth of 2.5m.

 

4.2     Visual Privacy

Section 5.3 of Randwick DCP 2013 prescribes that the development should minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy.

 

Control (iv) - 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.

 

The first floor balcony is oriented to the rear yard of the site and has a total depth of 2960mm. The existing balcony adjoins a lounge room and it is envisaged that increasing this area will lead to higher usage of the balcony, allowing for increased overlooking into the private open space of both adjoining dwellings. To inhibit overlooking towards the adjoining neighbours, a condition of consent has been included that privacy screens be included to the northern and southern edges of the balcony to a height of 1600mm above finished floor level.

                                                                                                 

4.3     Solar Access and Overshadowing

Section 5.1 of the Randwick DCP 2013 prescribes that alterations and additions are sited and designed to maximize solar access to the living areas and private open space and that reasonable levels of solar access are retained to neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

 

Solar access to the proposed development

The extension of the balcony will not impact on solar access to the existing dwelling and private open space. The additions are external and the shadows cast from the extension do not interfere with any north-facing windows. Therefore, a portion of the north-facing living area windows and private open space able to support passive recreational activities will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Solar access to neighbouring development

Due to the orientation of the site, 357 Maroubra Road is subject to additional overshadowing caused by the proposal and forms part of the assessment below.

 

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

 

Due to the configuration of the semis, the only north-facing windows of 357 Maroubra Road are located at the front of the property and so the extension to the rear balcony will not have any impact on solar access to these windows. The north-facing living area windows will receive direct sunlight between 12:00pm and 4:00pm on 21st June and therefore complies with the requirements of the RDCP 2013.

 

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

 

There are two areas of private open space at 357 Maroubra Road including the rear first floor deck and rear yard. Due to the existing 6.66m extension to the subject site, the whole first floor rear deck is in shadow between 8am and 4pm on the 21st June. Therefore, the rear yard is the only private open space on site that receives solar access on 21st June.

 

3 hours of direct sunlight is received to the rear yard of 357 Maroubra Road between the hours of 8am and 12pm on 21st June and complies with the numerical requirements of the RDCP 2013. However, this sunlight to the private open space is not constantly in one area of the rear yard and it could be argued that the quality of this sunlight is relatively poor.

 

The quality of this sunlight can be attributed to the following factors:

 

·      The orientation of the site

·      An extension to the rear of the subject site that was approved in 1980 (BA/1527/1980) extending 6.66m past the previously matching rear building line of the two semis

·      The approved garage in the rear south eastern corner of the site (BA/1240/1971).

 

357 Maroubra Road is located south of the subject property and some degree of overshadowing is expected. The existing extension and garage has resulted in significant overshadowing where minimal to no sunlight is received to the south/south eastern half of the property and private open space from 2pm. This solar access to the private open space is further exacerbated by existing trees and vegetation in the rear yard of 357 Maroubra Road. The condition of consent to reduce the balcony and roof depth to 2.5m will reduce the overshadowing impact to the adjoining southern neighbor whilst balancing the need of the occupants for a useable deck area. 

 

4.4     View Loss

It was considered that after a view loss assessment (see under DA compliance report) there were no significant views lost by the proposal.

 

The owners of both adjoining neighbours have purported that views will be lost as a result of the proposal. Upon a site inspection to both properties, there could be water views but from both dwellings, these are almost wholly obscured by existing vegetation. Nonetheless, a view loss assessment was undertaken below.

 

In order to test the reasonableness of the view loss resulting from the proposal, consideration is given to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle for views, established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004].

 

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

 

Comment: The owners of 361 Maroubra Road have raised concerns that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on views towards the ocean. It is recognised that there are water views looking north and east from this property. Figure 1 shows that southerly views towards the water are wholly obscured by existing vegetation at 408 to 410 Malabar Road. Further, the owners of 357 Maroubra Road have also raised concerns about loss of views towards the north and east. It is difficult to argue whether or not there are any views lost as figure 2 shows there is a significant amount of vegetation that already obscures any potential view.  

 

It is concluded that there are very little, if any, views that would be affected by the proposal.

IMG_0817_edited

Figure 3. Photo taken standing up from the north east corner of the first floor balcony/sunroom at 361 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

 

 

IMG_0828

Figure 4. Photo taken standing up from the north east corner of the rear deck at 357 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

 

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

 

Comment: The purported views affected are from a standing position from the first floor sunroom of 361 Maroubra Road and at a standing position form the first floor rear deck of 357 Maroubra Road. However, as it can be seen from the photos, these are relatively insignificant views. 

 

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

 

Comment: The anticipated view loss from both adjoining properties is neglible. The view obtained from the respective first floor sunroom and rear decks are wholly obscured by surrounding trees. The development will not obscure any significant views.

 

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

 

Comment: With conditions of consent, the proposal is considered to be of a reasonable design and configuration and complies with the relevant objectives and controls 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 involves a 2m extension to the existing balcony and the reconstruction of the external stairs. Notwithstanding the issues raised by the adjoining neighbours, the proposal is generally compliant and will adhere to the controls and objectives of the RDCP 2013 with conditions of consent. As a result, the proposal is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/753/2015 for the extension of the balcony to the rear of the existing dwelling with addition of a roof and exterior stairs to balcony, at No. 359 Maroubra Road 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 overall depth of the balcony and associated roof extension must not exceed 2.5m, as measured from the rear wall of lounge room.

 

b.     A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the whole northern and southern edges of the first floor balcony.  The privacy screens must be constructed fixed timber or metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically or fixed vertical louvres with the openings not exceeding 25% of the area of the screen.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 359 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D13/16

 

Subject:                  Shop 299/116-132 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/433/2011/A)

Folder No:               DA/433/2011/A

Author:                    Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 application to extend the trading hours of the premises from 8am to 10pm, 7 days.

                                Original consent: Retrospective approval for the use of the existing premises as a therapeutic massage business (10am to 8pm, 7 days).

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mrs C Maddrell

Owner:                    Mr L S Chieh

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The applicant is referred to council in accordance with Council’s resolution that requires all application involving any massages to be determined at a Council meeting.

Proposal

 

Details of current approval:

 

The current consent provides for the use of the existing premises as a therapeutic massage business. Condition 19 restricts the hours of operation to 10am to 8pm, seven days.

 

Details of proposed modification:

 

The applicant proposes to amend condition 19 so that the chinese medicine, beauty therapy and therapeutic massage business can operate from 8am to 10pm, seven days. No other changes are proposed to the operational nature, style or physical character of the business.   

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Maroubra Road at the corner of Bruce Bennetts Place. The site is occupied by a mixed commercial residential development comprising seven commercial premises on ground level and 294 residential units above.  The site has a total site area of 10,919.6m2. The subject premise “Miracle Touch Massage” is located within a commercial tenancy that fronts Maroubra Road at ground level. The frontage of the premise is shown within fig. 1 below.

 

Figure 1. Photograph showing the frontage of the commercial premise “Miracle Touch Massage” (centre). The intersection of Bruce Bennetts Place can be seen at the right.

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

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

 

 

 

Substantially the Same Development

 

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development and for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the application remains substantially within the scope of the original development.

 

Notification and Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

Hours of Operation

 

The proposed modification is for longer morning and evening operating hours. The existing approval restricts the business to operate between 10am and 8pm, seven days. The applicant advises within their Statement of Environmental Effects that longer operating hours are required due to customer requests, increased patronage and because other massage businesses in the area have opened with longer operating hours. The applicant seeks operating hours of 8am to 10pm, seven days.

 

One massage business could be found within the immediate vicinity that is authorised to trade at the same operating as now proposed for the subject premise - “The Remedy Massage Shop” at Shop 4 104-112 Maroubra Road (see locality plan above for location). This was consented by DA/694/2014. The character and locality of the two massage businesses are comparable to each other. In particular, both front Maroubra Road and are located within mixed-use residential/commercial buildings.

 

Due to the nature of the use, it is considered that the proposed extended hours of operation will not result in any adverse impacts to the adjoining residential and commercial development, and is unlikely to increase noise generation or parking demands above the former approved use. No complaints have been received since the subject premise was consented and no objections have been received for the subject application. The proposed hours of operation are generally consistent with the adjoining commercial premises along this section of Maroubra Road and nearby Anzac Parade.

 

The proposed hours of operation are considered to not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RLEP 2012 or the RCDCP 2013 (see below) and will result in no significant adverse environmental impacts.

 

Section 79C Assessment:

 

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

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

The following clauses of RLEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

 

 

Zone B2 – Local Centre

 

The site is zoned Local Centre B2 under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The proposed modification is consistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposal will not result in external physical changes to the building, will generally preserve the amenity of the surrounding environment, and will provide further business opportunities and consumer choice for local residents. The proposed amended hours of operation are comparable and compatible with the existing commercial context, including at the massage business at shop 4 104-112 Maroubra Road, which is consented to operate from 8am to 10pm, seven days.

 

Development Control Plans

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013)

 

The proposed modification seeks to extend the operating hours of the business and does not seek any modifications to the built form of the existing building. The proposed hours of operation are the same as a comparable and consented business nearby along Maroubra Road. The proposed modification will result in a business of comparable character to the originally approved use, and the existing available parking facilities (three onsite staff spaces) are therefore considered acceptable. The location of the subject site is well serviced by frequent public transport. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013.

 

Other Environmental Impacts – Section 79C(1)(b)

 

The proposal will generally provide for the onsite commercial activity while preserving the amenity of the surrounding environment. The proposed modification will be compatible with the character of the locality and is not an unexpected outcome within the context. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will generate no significant adverse environmental impacts.

 

Site Suitability

 

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature or scale of the approved development in relation to site suitability.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP and Council policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in development that is substantially the same nature as previously approved works. The modified development will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality and will be not inconsistent with the relevant objectives and criteria of the LEP 2012 and the RCDCP 2013.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/566/2014/A for an extention to the trading hours of the premises to 8am to 10pm, 7 days. in the following manner:

 

·       Amend Condition 19 to read as follows:

The hours of operation of the business are restricted to:

 

·      Monday to Sunday, from 8am to 10pm

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D14/16

 

Subject:                  5 Clisby Way, Matraville - DA/563/2015

Folder No:               DA/563/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Environa Studio

Owner:                    5 Clisby Way Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview21775.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 D’Souza, Matson and Shurey.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structures on site and the construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy.

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as 5 Clisby Way, Matraville and formally described as Lot 17 DP 246802. The subject site is a regular shaped allotment and is located in close proximity to the intersection of Clisby Way and Truscott Avenue. The site dimensions consist of a side boundary (north-eastern and south-western boundary) length of 36.575 metres and front and rear (north-western and south-eastern) boundary of 15.85 metres.

 

Neighbouring the site to the north-eastern and south-western sides of the dwelling comprise of single detached dwelling houses. The local site context is primarily low density residential in nature consisting of single to two storey detached dwelling houses. The subject site is characterized by a fall of approximately 1.35 metres across the site frontage from a south-west to a north-east direction.

 

View of the existing subject site and the neighbouring premises.

 

Development History

 

Council submit a request for additional information on the 29 September 2015 for the following:

 

1.   

Visual Bulk and Scale:

 

The proposed development includes the construction of new void areas at the first floor level with minimum dimensions of 4m x 3.3m to each occupancy allotment. The additional void spaces contributes to unreasonable visual bulk and scale to the adjacent developments and gives rise to additional overshadowing impacts that it creates to the direct southern neighbour. The applicants intention to use the space as a void area should be considered as excessive given Council’s calculations reveal that the area will receive a direct solar access between 8am – 9am given the windows east facing window opening. The applicant should consider achieving the same amount of solar access by providing a reduced void space area or provide a skylight to provide additional sunlight to the rear ground floor living area. The applicant should provide greater consideration to the constraints of the site as an east/west facing allotment and maximise the amount of direct sunlight to the neighbouring dwelling as much as possible through excessive void spaces. 

 

2.   

Solar Access and Overshadowing:

 

The submitted overshadowing diagrams are three dimensional shadow diagrams and are not considered to be an accurate reflection on the overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring premises. The overshadowing plans should be a reflection of the proposed site plan and the extent of the overshadowing which fall on the southern neighbouring premises at no. 7 Clisby Way, Matraville. The overshadowing plan should demonstrate the existing and future shadow lines as required by Council’s DA Checklist and indicate the shadow lines during the periods of 8.00am, 12.00pm and 4.00pm on the 21 June. Elevational shadowing plans should also be submitted to demonstrate the extent of shadowing to the north-facing window openings of the southern neighbour. The current shadowing plans are insufficient to accurately reflect the level of overshadowing to the southern adjacent premises.

 

3.   

Visual Privacy:

 

The proposed first floor bedroom window (W10 and W11) will contribute to direct overlooking into the private open space of the neighbouring dwellings at no. 3 and no. 7 Clisby Way, Matraville. The development does not comply with the objectives of visual privacy which requires that ‘development minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable level of privacy’. The applicant should consider installing a fixed and translucent glazing up to a minimum of 1600mm above the finished floor level; or install fixed privacy screens outside the windows in question; or setting the window sills more than 1600mm above the finished floor level to reduce any possible overlooking impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.  

 

The applicant responded to the above issues with the following:

 

·      Deletion of void space at the first floor level at the rear of the dual occupancy development

·      Increase height of skillion roof above the rear ground floor living area

·      Additional elevational shadow diagram information to demonstrate the extent of shadowing to the north-facing windows of the southern neighbour

·      Raise the window sill heights of the first floor south facing window openings (W9, W10 and W11) with a sill height of 1650mm above the finished floor level.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

 

7 Clisby Way, Matraville 

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal will result in significant overshadowing impacts to the objectors premises and does not provide a reasonable level of solar access compliant with the Council controls of the RDCP2013.

Refer to the Key Issues section of this report. 

The proposal is excessive in bulk and scale and the bulk of the development arises from the excessive void spaces including the rear first floor level void and the services room at ground and first floor level.

The applicant has submitted amended plans deleting the first floor level void space above the rear ground floor level.

 

With regards to the service space, refer to Key Issues section of this report. 

The first floor bedroom no. 1 window will result in direct overlooking into the rear private open space of the objectors premises.

The applicant has submitted amended plans providing a window sill height of windows W9, W10 and W11 will a window sill height of 1.65 metres above the finished floor level.

 

The submitted plans do not include the location of air-conditioning units. The objector is concerned that the proposed air-conditioning units will contribute to adverse noise impacts.

 

A condition of consent has been included that any external air-conditioning units are not approved subject to this consent.

The objector requests that the proposed side boundary fencing located forward of the building line be a maximum of 600mm as measured from the existing ground level to maintain adequate sightlines of oncoming motor vehicles and pedestrians.

 

The objector also requests that the side boundary fencing be provided with a facebrick finish to minimise the need for maintenance from the southern neighbouring premises. 

A condition of consent has been included that the side fence must be tapered down to match the height of the front fence once past the front façade alignment.

 

 

 

 

A condition of consent has been included The proposed brickwork of the side boundary fencing running along the south-western side boundary shall be constructed with face brick. Details of compliance must be provided in the Construction Certificate plans.

 

The proposed parapet roof form of the dual occupancy development is incompatible with the appearance of the existing dwelling houses within the streetscape.

The proposed roof parapet is acceptable and reflects a development that is contemporary in nature and is a suitable scale and form that complements the two storey nature of dwelling houses within the streetscape. The proposed parapet is not excessive in size and scale and the roof form slopes away from west to east and subsequently the parapet is lowered from the front elevation which will minimise the perceivable visual bulk and scale of the development from the streetscape.

The submitted plans do not include any details of retaining walls shown adjacent the side boundaries.

 

A retaining wall is proposed 14.2 metres as measured from the front setback to accommodate the lower ground floor level of the rear yard area. In addition to this, the following conditions of consent have been included that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times and excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

The submitted survey plans do not include details of the four window openings on the objectors premises and shows only three window openings.

The proposed amenity impacts to the adjoining dwellings have been considered on the basis of the four window openings along the southern elevation.

The objector is concerned that any works  compromise the structural integrity of the existing side boundary fencing.  

A condition of consent has been included that retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and adjoining structures.

The objector is concerned with the removal of asbestos and that suitable conditions be included for its safe removal and disposal of asbestos materials.

Suitable conditions of consent that works relating to the demolition, storage or disposal of asbestos products.

 

In addition to the above, the owner has submitted a further objection received by Council on 17 November 2015 to the amendments received on the 21 October 2015. The objection is as follows:

 

7 Clisby Way, Matraville 

 

Issue

Comment

The proposed solar access diagrams still do not indicate the extent of overshadowing considering the plans do not include the details of the living room window.

Refer to Key Issues section of this report. 

The proposal includes inconsistencies to the BASIX provisions with regards to the location of the window openings.

A new BASIX certificate has been submitted.

 

The section plan incorrectly shows the bedroom no. 1 window to have a floor to ceiling height of less than 1.65 metres.

A condition of consent has been included to ensure that the window sillretains a floor to ceiling height of 1.65 metres above the finished floor level. 

 

The service area is unreasonably sized and excessive which contributes to the bulk and scale of the development.

 

Refer to the key issues section of this report. 

The location of the proposed air-conditioning unit located on the roof top is unacceptable.

A condition of consent has been included that any external air-conditioning units are not approved subject to this consent.

 

The objector requests that all bathroom windows be installed with translucent glazing.

The proposed sill height of 1.65 metres above the finished floor level is acceptable in minimising overlooking impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. No further privacy mitigation is necessary.

 

Key Issues

 

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Definition of Gross Floor Area

In accordance with the RLEP2012, the definition of ‘gross floor area’ is defined as follows:

 

‘Gross floor area’ means the sum of the floor area of each floor of a building measured from the internal face of external walls, or from the internal face of walls separating the building from any other building, measured at a height of 1.4 metres above the floor level and includes:

 

(a) the area of a mezzanine, and

(b) habitable rooms in a basement or an attic, and

(c) any shop, auditorium, cinema, and the like in a basement or attic, but excludes:

(d) any area for common vertical circulation, such as lifts and stairs, and

(e) any basement:

        (i) storage, and

        (ii) vehicular access, loading areas, garbage and services, and

(f) plant rooms, lift towers and other areas used exclusively for mechanical services or ducting, and

(g) car parking to meet any requirements of the consent authority (including access to that car parking), and

(h) any space used for the loading and unloading of goods (including access to it), and

(i) terraces and balconies with outer walls less than 1.4 metres high, and

(j) voids above a floor at the level of a storey or a storey above.

 

With respect to the proposed development, the proposal includes the construction of a new services room at the ground and first floor level of both the northern and southern occupancies of the dwelling. Clarification was sought to the applicant with the intention of the services room. The applicant advised the following:

 

Thanks you for the inquiry about the service space within the houses.  It’s a space that has as many of the services in the house in one open accessible space so they can be maintained / upgraded etc.  It is part of our philosophy of Long Life / Loose Fit / Low impact sustainable design. It is built into the houses with an access door at the ground level and is open through the 2 levels with an internal ladder access. It contains the following:

 

·      electrical sub board and all the main wiring into the house

·      all hot and cold water piping to the bathrooms laundry and kitchen (which are adjacent

·      the waste pipes from those rooms to a single sewer connection

·      the hot water hearted which is side vented to the outside (level 1)

·      the AC compressor which is mounted at level 2 and is likewise vented to the outside

·      the fan coil unit and the ductwork to the passage way on both levels for ducted AC

 

This room is locked and accessible only to accredited contractors.  As it is only a service room and not usable as such we do not included it in the FSR calculations.  It also helps in hiding these services from view, and makes the operation of the water heater and AC quieter.  And it is only a very small part of the footprint of the house and adds negligible bulk to the size of the house.

 

The description provided by the applicant identifies that the service room will provide a range of services for the dwelling including electrical, watering, waste and ventilation to each occupancy. As per the justification provided by the applicant the service room is akin to a ‘plant room’ that houses the machinery and equipment used for everyday functions intended for human occupancy. This includes heating, cooling, water, waste and mechanical ventilation to service both occupancies on day-to-day basis. Thus as per the definition of the RLEP2012, the proposal is excluded from Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios in accordance with the RLEP2012.

 

In considering the merits of the proposed ‘plant room’, the minor increase to the building envelope will not contribute to any appreciable amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The solar access and overshadowing impacts to the southern neighbour is acceptable in maintaining the required three hours of direct solar access; the visual privacy has been appropriately conditioned to ensure the first floor window openings are set 1.65 metres above the finished floor level of the dwelling; the built form is appropriately setback to maintain reasonable levels of acoustic privacy and no iconic or district views are visible from the adjoining dwellings.   

 

Notwithstanding the above, the ‘plant room’ does not compromise the visual bulk and scale of the development as seen from the neighbouring dwellings. The visual bulk and scale is acceptable given the plant room will form part of the building block and will continue to comply with the building envelope controls given it is setback 2.5 metres - more than double the minimum side setback requirement; will remain below the maximum external wall height from the southern affected neighbour; will remain below the overall building height; seamlessly integrates into the building façade through the composition of the articulated wall recesses along the northern and southern external wall and does not contribute to the apparent form and massing of the development given the building length is appropriately divided into wall modules.

 

·      Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Clause 3.2: Building Height

The RDCP2013 requires a maximum permissible external wall height of 7 metres as measured from the existing ground level to the topmost point of an external wall. The northern occupancy does not comply with the external wall height controls given the subject site comprises of an external wall height of 7.8 metres and does not comply with Council’s controls. The departure to the Council control by an additional 800mm is contributed largely by the substantial fall of approximately 1.44 metres (9%) across the site frontage. The Council control allows for an increase to the external wall height to 8 metres should the site considered to be considered a sloping site which requires a fall of approximately 10% as determined by the Courts. Subsequently, the breach to the external wall height requirement is considered to be a minor non-compliance in considering the existing site characteristics and the relativity of the fall from south to north.

 

Further, the breach to the external wall will not contribute to any adverse environmental impacts to the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. The non-compliance arises from the northern external wall and the southern occupancy will remain compliant with the external wall requirements given it is constructed at a lower ground level (existing) and compliant external wall height at 6.5 metres. The development does not contribute to additional shadowing impacts to the direct southern neighbour given the breach arises on the low side (northern) of the site. The departure is acceptable and does not give rise to visual privacy, visual bulk and scale or view loss impacts. The breach to the external wall height is acceptable and will continue to comply with the objectives for building height.

 

Clause 5.1: Solar Access and Overshadowing

The Council control requires that a minimum of three hours between 8am – 4pm on the 21 June be provided to the north-facing living room windows and rear private open space of the neighbouring dwellings. The southern neighbour at no. 7 Clisby Way will be most affected by the proposed works. The applicant submitted additional elevational shadow diagrams that were received on the 20 October 2015 and were assessed to determine the validity of the submitted plans.

 

The extent of the additional overshadowing impacts is acceptable in complying with Council’s controls for solar access and overshadowing. The elevated ground floor north-facing windows will maintain the required three hours of direct solar access between the hours of 10am – 2pm. At 9am, the north-facing window openings will be shadowed by the proposed development. At 10am, the shadowing cast from the southern external wall will fall to the bottom of the window sill at RL42.44. At 11am – 1pm the extent of the overshadowing will lessen and fall on the carport structure adjacent to the southern boundary. At 1pm, the shadowing will increase in length however will fall on the edge of the bottom sill of the window. At 2pm, the north-facing windows will be showed by the proposed development. Subsequently, the extent of overshadowing is acceptable given the neighbouring premises will comply with the minimum requirements of solar access and overshadowing and achieve the required three hours between 10am – 2pm on the 21 June.

 

In addition to this, the proposal will cast additional shadowing to the private open space. However, the extent that the shadowing will fall on the principle outdoor recreation space is not expected to be significant. Most of the additional overshadowing between the hours of 10am – 2pm will fall between the northern building alignment of the southern neighbour and the southern boundary. The remaining area that will be unaffected is more than adequate and capable for accommodating passive recreational activities.

 

It is also worthwhile noting that the proposed design scheme is minimizes the extent of overshadowing to the southern neighbour given its overall compliance with the building envelope provisions of the RDCP2013. The proposal complies in meeting all relevant building envelope provisions including floor space ratios, height of buildings, external wall heights, site coverage and deep soil requirements. Whilst the front portion is setback at a compliant 1200mm from the southern boundary, 80% of the southern side façade is setback more than 2.5 to 3.5 metres from the southern boundary. The proposal will provide greater solar access to the southern neighbour than an otherwise compliant side setback that is 1200mm from the southern side boundary.

 

In considering the above, the extent of overshadowing is considered to be acceptable. The distribution of the floor space is largely concentrated centrally within the site and generous side setbacks are provided to minimise the extent of overshadowing where possible. The extent of the overshadowing is acceptable and is contributory to the orientation of the allotment patterns. Nevertheless total compliance is demonstrated to both the objectives and the controls of the RDCP2013 for solar access and overshadowing.

 

Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy

An objection has been received from the southern adjoining neighbour with regards to the possible overlooking impacts from the upper floor addition of the southern occupancy to the southern neighbour at no. 7 Clisby Way, Matraville. The extent of overlooking is available into the objectors rear private open space area and the adjacent habitable room windows. The applicant has submitted amended plans which include raising the sill height of the windows by a minimum of 1.65 metres above the finished floor level. The proposal will comply with the controls of the RDCP2013 and will continue to provide a reasonable level of privacy to the immediately adjoining dwellings.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The extent of additional overshadowing which falls on the affected south-western neighbour at no. 7 Clisby Way is acceptable in considering the overall design scheme provides results in generous building envelope provisions above the minimum requirements of the RDCP2013.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the responsible authority grant its development consent under Section 80 & 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/563/2015 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a two storey attached dual occupancy at 5 Clisby Way, 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

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The side boundary fencing must be tapered down to match the height of the front fence once past the front façade alignment.

 

b.     The proposed brickwork of the side boundary fencing running along the south-western side boundary shall be constructed with face brick. Details of compliance must be provided in the Construction Certificate plans.

 

c.     This consent does not grant approval for any external air-conditioning units.

 

d.     The first floor window openings to both occupancies must have a minimum sill height of 1.65m above the finished floor level along the northern and southern elevation. 

 

e.     A skylight window with a minimum dimension of 1m x 1m must be installed over the first floor stairwell to both occupancies in order to provide natural light into the dwellings.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5 Clisby Way, Matraville

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D15/16

 

Subject:                  1179 Anzac Parade, Matraville (DA/994/2011/D)

Folder No:               DA/994/2011/D

Author:                    Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by deletion of condition 2(e) relating to design of landing entry, stairs and privacy screen

                                Original Consent: Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two/part three storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works (SEPP1 Objections to floor space ratio and height controls)

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mr P Flentzeris

Owner:                    Mr P Flentzeris

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

Proposal

 

Details of current approval:

Demolition of existing structures and construction of a part two/part three storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works.

 

Details of proposed modification:

The applicant proposes a Section 96 modification of the approved development by the deletion of condition 2(e) relating to design of landing entry, stairs and privacy screen. Condition 2(e) was added by the previous Section 96 modification (ref: DA/994/2011/C). The condition reads:

    “2(e)  The proposed external landing entry, associated stairs and privacy screen structures to both dwellings are to be deleted from the S96 C plans. The entry design must revert back to the original approval under DA/994/2011.”

 

The applicant has stated that they require the deletion so that the external landing entry, associated stairs and privacy screen structures to both dwellings can be constructed as they were shown on the drawings submitted with the previous Section 96 modification (ref: DA/994/2011/C). No design changes are proposed to these drawings.

 

Site

 

The R2 Low Density Residential zoned site is on the western side of Anzac Parade, south of Hillary Parade. The site is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling and adjoining garage. Approval has been granted for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of a part-two part-three storey dual occupancy (DA/994/2011) on the site. The subject site has a regular rectangular shape and slopes moderately on an easterly aspect.

 

The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by low density residential development that consists primarily of detached dwellings and attached dual occupancies, generally one to two storied (see fig. 1 below).


Figure 1. Photograph of the subject site (centre) and adjoining sites on either side.

 

 

 

Application History

 

On 10 July 2012, development consent was granted at a Planning Committee Meeting for the demolition of all existing structures on site and construction of a part two/part three storey attached dual occupancy with garages and associated works.

 

Section 96 ‘A’ application to modify the approved development consent by adding a roof terrace to each dwelling, increasing the size of bedroom 1 to each dwelling and altering entry stairs was refused at an Ordinary Council Meeting on 26th November 2013.

 

Section 96 ‘B’ application to modify the approved development consent by increasing the floor levels of entry foyer and side pathways, internal reconfiguration, new rear first floor balconies and roof terrace including associated staircase structure to each dwelling was refused at the Planning Committee Meeting on 12th May 2015.

 

Section 96 ‘C’ application to modify the approved development consent by increasing the floor level of the entry foyers and side pathways, new rear stairs, increase the size of the ensuites and new rear first floor balconies with privacy screens was approved (subject to additional conditions) at the Planning Committee Meeting on 11th August 2015.

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment

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

 

Substantially the Same Development

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development and for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the application remains substantially within the scope of the original development.

 

Notification and Submissions

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

1177 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Issue

Comment

The deletion of condition 2(e) and the resulting landing entry, stairs and privacy screen will result in visual and aural privacy impacts on the submitter’s property and would affect the submitter’s quality of life.

The submitter’s concerns are generally agreed with. Condition 2(e) was imposed to prevent visual and aural privacy impacts on the sites on either side. The applicant has not provided additional mitigation or justification that would address these concerns. Refer “key issues” section for more comments.

 

Entry Locations

The proposed modification and resulting entry locations and landings will result in a non-compliance with the Visual Privacy (Sub-section 5.3) and Acoustic Privacy (Sub-section 5.4) controls of the RCDCP 2013. These matters were discussed in the report associated with the previous Section 96 (2) application (ref: DA/994/2011/C). The applicant has not made any further design changes to the entries or any further justification (beyond again highlighting the privacy screens). Therefore, the comments from the previous report are considered applicable to this proposal and are repeated below:      

 

In relation to the reconfiguration of the main side entry to each dwelling, the external relocation of internal portions of the entry stairs will result in a 1.19m increase in the landing level from what was approved in the original consent which is directly opposite the side windows of the adjoining neighbours. The proposed entry configuration is identical to the previous section 96 applications that were refused due to adverse amenity impacts to neighbouring dwellings.

 

The subject section 96 (2) application includes the provision of 2.6m high privacy screens to the edges of the landings, (resulting in privacy screen structures with an overall height of 3.79m measured from the existing ground level). The main concerns with the proposed changes, relate directly to maintaining privacy to the adjoining properties and the visual bulk created by the privacy screen structures which have a nil side setback. It is considered that the proposal will adversely impact both the adjoining properties at Nos. 1177 and 1181 Anzac Parade and the character of the streetscape.

 

In relation to the southern elevation, the increased landing level results in significant privacy impacts to the southern neighbours kitchen and dining room windows whereby the landing level will be only 180mm below the neighbours kitchen and dining room window sills and the existing 1.8m fence only achieves an effective height of 360mm above the proposed landing (refer fig. 2 below). The proposed privacy screen, whilst mitigating the potential for overlooking, will result in significant visual bulk being constructed 1500mm from the adjacent living room windows, it is considered that this will adversely affect the visual outlook from the adjoining property and adversely affect the internal amenity for the occupants as well as presenting poorly when viewed within the context of the immediate streetscape.

 


In relation to the northern elevation, a privacy screen has also been proposed along the northern side landing as this landing sits 1.08m below the window sill level opposite (RL 34.00). The proposed landing and associated privacy screen will result in the same issues discussed above.

Figure 2. The proposed entry stairs and landing (red outline) and RLs of relevant windows on adjoining sites.

 

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed modification will result in significant adverse impacts to for the amenity of both adjoining side neighbours and the visual amenity of the streetscape. The modification is deemed to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013.

 

Section 79C Assessment:

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

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

The proposal is inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

The following clauses of RLEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Zone R2 – Low Density Residential

The site is zoned Low Density Residential R2 under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The proposed modification is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposal will not preserve the amenity of the surrounding environment or protect the amenity of adjoining residents (refer “key issues” discussion).

 

Development Control Plans

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013)

Relevant sections from the RDCP 2013 are discussed within the “key issues” section of this report.

 

Other Environmental Impacts – Section 79C(1)(b)

 

The proposal will result in no other environmental impacts, beyond those already highlighted within the “key issues” discussion above.

 

Site Suitability

 

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature or scale of the approved development in relation to site suitability.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP and Council policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in development that is substantially the same nature as previously approved works. The modified development will result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity of the locality (particularly for adjoining residents) and will be inconsistent with the relevant objectives and criteria of the LEP 2012 and the RCDCP 2013.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/994/2011/D by the deletion of condition 2(e) relating to design of landing entry, stairs and privacy screen, for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed modification is deemed to be inconsistent with the low density residential R2 objectives of the RLEP 2012

2.   The proposed modification is deemed to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013

3.   The proposed modification would result in a design that significantly adversely impacts both the amenity enjoyed by adjoining residents and the amenity and character of the streetscape.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                9 February 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D16/16

 

Subject:                  JRPP - 57-63 St Pauls Street, Randwick (DA/493/2012/B)

Folder No:               DA/493/2012/B

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Introduction

 

The original consent (DA/493/2012) was approved by the JRPP on the 5 December 2012 for a concept plan and stage 1 DA for seniors housing development comprising independent living units, a residential care facility with 93 beds and 20 x 1 bedroom serviced apartments in 4 building elements ranging from 5 to 8 storeys in height, basement parking for 154 vehicles and associated works. The proposed works are currently under construction.

 

This S96B application (DA/493/2012/B) seeks minor alterations and additions to the northern tower development fronting Coogee Bay Road including incremental increases to the building envelope to the basement level 02 and level 03 - 05, an additional storey to the eastern and western wings of the northern tower fronting Coogee Bay Road with new 2 x 3 bedroom plus study unit, increase in the number of apartments from 36 units to 42 units and new solar panels to the rooftop to the building.

 

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) for determination, as the application is made pursuant to S96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. The matter will be considered by the JRPP on Thursday 11 February, 2016.

 

Issues

 

The issues to the subject section 96 application are as follows:

 

·      Submissions

 

The S96B application was publicly exhibited to the immediately adjoining neighbours, advertised within the local newspaper and site notification attached to the subject premise as per the requirements of the RDCP2013 for Public Notification. The application was formally notified between the periods on the 16 September 2015 to the 30 September 2015 with a total of four objections received. The objections received to the development application have raised the following issues:

 

·      the modifications do not constitute a development that is substantially the same as per originally approved;

·      incompatibility in height to the adjacent buildings;

·      adverse visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape;

·      inconsistencies within the submitted statement of environmental effects and

·      the modifications not being within the public interest.

·      adverse privacy and overshadowing.

·      Increase traffic and lack of car parking.

 

·      Substantially the Same Development

 

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

(a)  it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

In consideration of the above, Council is required to determine whether the proposed modifications with particular regards to the additional storeys to the  eastern and western wings of the northern building block will constitute “substantially the same as the development which was originally granted for which consent was originally granted”. The “substantially the same” test has been the subject of case law and is relatively settled. Council has carried out a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the original approval and the subject section 96 modifications will deem to satisfy the “substantially the same development” test. The subject section 96 modifications can be reasonably argued that the development will remain “substantially the same development” in assessing the numerical and non-numerical factors to the additional visual bulk and scale of the development. The proposed modifications are both materially and essentially the same development to that which has been granted consent.

 

·      Visual Bulk and Scale

 

The section 96 involves amendments to the building heights and the number of storeys to the northern-most building block fronting Coogee Bay Road. The modifications include an additional storey to the eastern wing and increase to the approved building height from RL76.7 to RL79.8 and an additional storey to the western wing and increase to the approved building height from RL 79.8 to RL83.0. The additional storey to the northern tower will maintain a similar roof form as the approved development consisting of a low profile skillion roof.

 

The visual bulk and scale of the new upper floor addition to the northern tower development has been designed to be set well within the building footprint comprising of an increased side and front setback to the property boundaries. The scale of the development will partially remain aligned with the tree canopy when viewed from the public open space area at High Cross Park; the building will retain a stepped built form from the front building alignment which will alleviate the visual massing of the development when viewed from the northern aspect of Coogee Bay Road and the additional storey will still remain within a consistent building height plane to other similarly large developments given its location between the Central Tower and the Clinical Sciences Building and/Edmund Blacket Building at the Prince of Wales Hospital site when viewed from the Coogee Basin. The additional height will remain commiserate from the existing streetscape, in particular when viewed directly south given the Central Tower behind will extend beyond the northern building block and will offer relativity to the size and scale of the northern tower and be proportion to the streetscape and human scale of the development.

 

The photomontages that have been submitted as part of the original development application (which were previously verified by Council’s Digital Photo Expert) have been amended as part of the Section 96 modification to include the additional storeys that are visible from the visual catchment areas including areas of public open space and an easterly and westerly aspect from Coogee Bay Road. The scale of the development will partially remain aligned with the tree canopy when viewed from the public open space area at High Cross Park; the building will retain a stepped built form from the front building alignment which will alleviate the visual massing of the development when viewed from the northern aspect of Coogee Bay Road and the additional storey will still remain within a consistent building height plane between the Central Tower and the Clinical Sciences Building and/Edmund Blacket Building at the Prince of Wales Hospital site when viewed from the Coogee Basin.

 

·          Visual Privacy

 

The upper floor level will provide a reasonable level of visual privacy to the neighbouring dwellings including the Brigidine College to the west and the adjoining residential flat developments to the east. To the west, the existing trees and vegetation adjacent to the western boundary of the site will screen any direct views into the outdoor play spaces and the rooms to the Brigidine Covenant. The view to the west also comprises of a significant separation between the new addition and the outdoor play area/adjoining windows and will not result in any direct overlooking into the adjacent areas.

 

To the east, the new addition will not overlook into the private open space or the habitable room windows of no. 43 Coogee Bay Road given the significant changes in levels between the new upper floor addition and the private open space to the eastern neighbour by approximately 15 metres. The extent of overlooking is considered to be largely oblique and does not provide any direct sightlines into either the habitable room windows or the private open space of the neighbouring dwelling. The visual privacy to the north is also adequate given the substantial separation and setback between the new upper floor level and the north facing to the balconies and habitable room windows on the opposite side of Coogee Bay Road by approximately 40 metres.

 

·      Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

The shadows cast from the extended building envelopes and the additional storey to the northern tower does not contribute to any significant appreciable impacts which may compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings. To the east, the shadowing will remain largely unchanged from the approved development and will continue to shade a portion of the vehicular access handle and the outdoor private open space play area of the Brigidine College, Randwick. Between the periods of 9am – 2pm the development will overshadow the subject site itself and is likely to fall on the lower level units of the Central Tower development. The extent of overshadowing to the lower level units is acceptable in that it more than 70% of the units will receive a minimum of two hours as per the Apartment Design Guidelines of SEPP 65. To the west, the building block fronting Daintrey Crescent will receive a reduction in direct solar access between the hours of 1:30pm – 3pm and is acceptable given the northern facing window openings will maintain uninterrupted direct solar access between the hours 9am – 1:30pm.

 

·      View Loss

 

The distant water views that are available to the eastern neighbour will also not be impinged by the section 96 modifications. The view corridor between the northern and central towers will not reduce the 25 metre building separation between the two building blocks and the outlook will remain uninterrupted by the subject section 96 amendments. The additional storeys will not contribute to any reduction to the distant water views over Coogee and will maintain a reasonable level of view sharing to the eastern neighbour of the Brigidine Covenant.

 

The proposed modifications and the associated impacts have been carefully considered and the new addition will remain not adversely affect the character of the building within the streetscape. Further, the upper floor addition and the additions to the building envelope at the lower levels will not contribute to any significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring development and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

·      Parking

 

Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the development application and provided initial comments to the subject section 96 modifications. No objections have been raised considering the Section 96 modifications seeks to reinstate 6 independent living units to compensate for the loss of 8 independent living units that were deleted as part of the original development consent. Subsequently, the proposed modifications will contribute to a similar parking and traffic demand as that of the originally approved development. Notwithstanding this, the number of parking spaces was over compliant by approximately 50 spaces as part of the original application and will continue to comply with the necessary parking provisions within the SEPP (Housing for Seniors or People with a Disability) 2004.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

Outcome 4:   Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications sought under the Section 96 application including the minor amendments to the building envelope and the additional storey to the northern tower are acceptable and do not give rise to adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The development will continue to maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy, views and solar access to the occupants and the neighbouring dwellings and the modifications to the building envelope will not be out of character with the presentation of the development within the existing streetscape.

 

Having regard to the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, the proposed modifications are considered to result in a development that remains substantially the same as the development for which the consent was originally granted.

 

Approval of the modification (subject to conditions) will not result in any significant environmental impacts and will not detract from the integrity of the development nor its relationship with adjoining development.

 

Recommendation

 

That the assessment report for the Joint Regional Planning Panel in relation to DA/493/2012/B (57-63 St Pauls Street, Randwick) be endorsed by Council.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

JRPP Report - 57-63 St Pauls Street, RANDWICK

 

 

 

 


JRPP Report - 57-63 St Pauls Street, RANDWICK

Attachment 1

 

 

Joint Regional Planning Panel

(Sydney East Region)

 

JRPP No.

 

2015SYE153

DA No.:

Section 96 modification of the approved development (S96B) comprising of alterations to building adjacent to Coogee Bay Road including additional level on eastern and western wings of seventh floor, additional level on eighth floor, alterations to building envelope and reconfiguration of units resulting in an increase from 36 units to 42 units.

 

Original Consent: Concept Plan and Stage 1 DA for seniors housing development comprising independent living units, a residential care facility with 93 beds and 20 x 1 bedroom serviced apartments in 4 building elements ranging from 5 to 8 storeys in height, basement parking for 154 vehicles and associated works.

 

Street Address

 

57-63 St. Pauls Street, Randwick

Applicant

Momentum Project Group

 

Owner

St. Basils Home

 

Number of Submissions

 

4

Recommendation

Approval

 

Report By

Matthew Choi

 

 

1.     Executive Summary

 

Council is in receipt of a Section 96(2) application seeking modification of the consent DA/493/2012; which was approved by the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) on the 5 December 2012 for the Concept Plan and Stage 1 DA for seniors housing development comprising independent living units, a residential care facility with 93 beds and 20 x 1 bedroom serviced apartments in 4 building elements ranging from 5 to 8 storeys in height, basement parking for 154 vehicles and associated works.

 

This S96B application (DA/493/2012/B) seeks alterations and additions to the northern building fronting Coogee Bay Road including incremental increases to the building envelope to the basement level 02 and level 03 - 05, an additional storey to the eastern and western wings of the northern tower fronting Coogee Bay Road with new 2 x 3 bedroom plus study unit and increase to the number of apartments from 36 units to 42 units and new solar panels to the rooftop to the building.

 

The S96B application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, as the application is made pursuant to S96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011.

 

The S96B application was publicly exhibited, advertised within the local newspaper and site notification attached to the subject premise as per the requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP2013) for Public Notification. The application was formally notified between the periods on the 16 September 2015 to the 30 September 2015 with a total of four objections received. The objections include: the modifications do not constitute a that development that is substantially the same as per the requirements of Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act; incompatibility in height to the adjacent buildings; adverse visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape; inconsistencies within the submitted statement of environmental effects and the modifications not being within the public interest.

 

The proposal involves amendments to the building heights and the number of storeys to the northern-most building block fronting Coogee Bay Road. The modifications include an additional storey to the eastern wing and increase to the approved building height from RL76.7 to RL79.8 and an additional storey to the western wing and increase to the approved building height from RL 79.8 to RL83.0. The additional storey to the northern building will maintain a similar roof form as the approved development consisting of a low profile skillion roof.

 

The visual bulk and scale of the new upper floor addition to the northern building has been designed to be set well within the building footprint comprising of an increased side and front setback to the property boundaries. The scale of the development will partially remain aligned with the tree canopy when viewed from the public open space area at High Cross Park; the building will retain a stepped built form from the front building alignment which will alleviate the visual massing of the development when viewed from the northern aspect of Coogee Bay Road and the additional storey will still remain within a consistent building height plane to other similarly large developments given its location between the Central Tower and the Clinical Sciences Building and/Edmund Blacket Building at the Prince of Wales Hospital site when viewed from the Coogee Basin.

 

The increase to the number of apartments within the northern building from 36 to 42 apartments is achieved through a reconfiguration of the existing floor plates and increases to the building envelope with the inclusion of the upper floor addition sought as part of the Section 96 modifications. The amended apartment layout does not deviate from the Apartment Design Guidelines as required by SEPP 65 with regards to amenity controls or building configuration given all units will continue to enjoy a northern aspect and receive direct sunlight between the hours of 8am – 4pm, 21 June.

 

In terms of additional shadowing impact to the adjoining neighbours, the shadows cast that arise from the extended building envelopes and the additional storey to the northern building does not contribute to any significant appreciable impacts which may compromise the amenity of the adjacent dwellings. To the east, the shadowing will remain largely unchanged from the approved development and will continue to shade a portion of the vehicular access handle and the outdoor private open space play area of the Brigidine College, Randwick. Between the periods of 9am – 2pm the development will overshadow the subject site itself and will fall on the lower level units of the Central Tower development. The extent of overshadowing to the lower level units is acceptable in that it more than 70% of the units will receive a minimum of two hours as per the Apartment Design Guidelines of SEPP 65. To the west, the adjacent residential flat building fronting Coogee Bay Road will continue to maintain a northern aspect and achieve the minimum required three hours of direct solar access. The building block fronting Daintrey Crescent will receive a reduction in direct solar access between the hours of 1.30pm – 3pm and is acceptable given the northern facing window openings will maintain uninterrupted direct solar access between the hours 9am – 1.30pm.

 

The distant water views that are available to the eastern neighbour will also not be impinged by the section 96 modifications. The view corridor between the northern and central building will not reduce the 25 metre building separation between the two building blocks and the outlook will remain uninterrupted by the subject section 96 amendments. The additional storeys will not contribute to any reduction to the distant water views over Coogee and will maintain a reasonable level of view sharing to the eastern neighbour of the Brigidine Covenant.

 

The proposed modifications and the associated impacts have been carefully considered and the new addition will remain not adversely affect the character of the building within the streetscape. Further, the upper floor addition and the additions to the building envelope at the lower levels will not contribute to any significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring development and is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

2.     The Proposal

 

The subject section 96 applications seeks approval to modify the original design scheme to the northern building block fronting Coogee Bay Road. The proposed section 96 modifications involve the following: 

 

Basement level 2:

 

·      Increase floor space to western-most unit

 

Basement level 1:

 

·      Delete portion of west facing balcony to western-most unit

 

Level 1:

 

·      Delete portion of west facing balcony to western-most unit

 

Level 3:

 

·      Increase floor space to north-facing unit to the eastern wing of the northern tower

 

Level 4:

 

·      Increase in building envelope to eastern wing by an additional 125sqm

·      Increase in size of living/dining to north facing unit of western wing

 

Level 5:

 

·      Increase to building envelope to the western wing by an additional 133sqm

·      An additional storey to the eastern wing comprising 3 x bedroom plus study

 

Level 6:

 

·      Installation of new solar panels on rooftop to the eastern wing

·      An additional storey to the western wing comprising1 x 3 bedroom plus study

 

Level 7:

 

·      Installation of new solar panels on rooftop to the western wing

 

The table below contained in the SEE accompanying the S96 applications summarises the modifications to the apartment mix which is as follows:

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Development statistics

 

Source: Excerpt from the Statement of Environmental Effects

 

 

Application History

 

Approved Development Application DA/493/2012:

A development application was approved on the 5 December 2015 by the Joint Regional Planning Panel for the Concept Plan and Stage 1 DA for seniors housing development comprising independent living units, a residential care facility with 93 beds and 20 x 1 bedroom serviced apartments in 4 building elements ranging from 5 to 8 storeys in height, basement parking for 154 vehicles and associated works.

 

Approved Section 96A(1A) Application DA/493/2012/A:

A section 96(1A) modification was approved on the 23 May 2014 seeking to amend condition no. 51 relating to the Section 94 Contributions.

 

Approved Section 96C(1A) Application DA/493/2012/C:

A section 96(1A) modification was approved on the 5 November 2015 seeking to delete condition no. 136 relating to the undergrounding of power lines.

 

Subject Site

 

The subject site is located at No. 57-63 St Pauls Street, Randwick, and has frontages to St Pauls Street and Coogee Bay Road and Daintrey Crescent. The subject site comprises Lot 1 DP 776899 and Lot 1494 DP 752011. It has an area of 1.252 ha.

 

Topographically, the subject site runs along a ridge through the centre of the site which is its highest point. From this central east-west ridge line, the subject site falls steeply towards Coogee Bay Road to the north and more gently towards St Paul Street to the south.

 

The immediate context of the subject site, to the north, east and south of the site, is residential in nature, comprising predominantly residential flat buildings with isolated detached and semi-detached dwellings to the south. Development to the west comprises the Brigidine College and Brigidine Convent with the Spot town centre further to the west.

 

The subject site is currently under construction.

 

3.     Community Consultation:

 

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development; and the proposed development was also advertised, in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification. Four (4) submissions were received from the following properties. The issues raised in the submissions are addressed below and in the subsequent sections of this report.

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview47291.png

Map of subject site (shown in green) and objectors premises (shown in red)

 

·      8 Daintrey Crescent, Randwick (two submissions received)

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed modifications do not constitute as ‘substantially the same development’ in accordance with Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended)

Refer to Section 96 Assessment for further details.

The additional two storeys will create excessive visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape and be not be in keeping with the character of the streetscape.

Refer to Assessment of Key Issues: Visual Bulk and Scale for further details.

The increase in the number of units from 36 to 42 will reduce the availability of off-street parking within Daintrey Crescent.

The proposal will comply with the minimum off-street parking requirements and will continue to provide in excess of approximately 50 spaces over a compliant development. There is not expected to be any significant spillage to the availability of on-street parking spaces.

The proposed modifications will result in adverse vehicular traffic within the surrounding street network.

The proposal will continue to comply with the minimum standards for off-street parking and the additional units will not compromise the vehicular traffic flow within the surrounding street network given the nominal increase in the number of units.

 

·      7-37 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

 

Issues

Comments

The additional stories will contribute to additional overshadowing impacts to the outdoor recreation area and buildings of the Brigidine College and Aged Care Facility.

Refer to Assessment of Key Issues: Solar Access and Overshadowing for further details.

The section 96 modifications will exacerbate privacy levels to the play/recreational area to the Brigidine College.

Refer to Assessment of Key Issues: Visual Privacy for further details.

 

·      8/38 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

 

Issues

Comments

The modifications are considered to be an overdevelopment, in particular given a deferred commencement condition was included as part of the original consent to delete two stories from the central building block.   

Noted. Refer to Section 96 Assessment for further details.

The additional storeys will result in a development that will remain incompatible in height to the neighbouring buildings.  

Refer to Assessment of Key Issues: Visual Bulk and Scale for further details.

The additional storeys will create excessive visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape.

The proposal will create significant overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

Refer to Assessment of Key Issues: Solar Access and Overshadowing for further details.

There are several inconsistencies that are evident within the submitted statement of environmental effects.

The submitted plans include sufficient information to ensure a proper assessment of the development application. 

The proposal is not within the public interest.

The Section 96 modification is within the public interest having regards to the amenity impacts and the appearance of the building within the streetscape. Refer to the latter sections of this report for further details.

 

4.     Design Review Panel Comments:

 

The following comments have been received from Council’s Design Review Panel:

 

INTRODUCTION

 

A copy of the SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles is attached.  The Panel’s comments, set out below, are to assist Randwick Council in its consideration of the application, and to assist applicants to achieve better design outcomes in relation to these principles.

 

The absence of a comment under any of the heads of consideration does not necessarily imply that the Panel considers the particular matter has been satisfactorily addressed, as it may be that changes suggested under other heads will generate a desirable change.

 

Your attention is drawn to the following;

 

SEPP 65, including the 9 Design Quality Principles and the requirements for a Qualified Designer (a Registered Architect) to provided Design Verification Statements throughout the design, documentation and construction phases of the project.

 

The Apartment Design Code (ADG), as published by Planning NSW (July 2015), which provides guidance on all the issues addressed below.

 

Both documents are available from the Department of Planning.

 

Note: The Design Review Panel members are appointed by the NSW Minister for Planning, on the recommendation of Council.

 

The Panel members’ written and verbal comments are their professional opinions, based on their experience.

 

To address the Panel's comments, the applicant may need to submit amended plans.  Prior to preparing any amended plans, the applicant should discuss the Panel's comments and any other matter that may require amendment with the assessing Planning Officer.

 

When addressing the Panel's comments by way of amendments, if the applicant does not propose to address all or the bulk of the Panel's comments, and wishes to make minor amendments only, then it should be taken that the Panel considers the proposal does not meet the SEPP 65 requirements.  In these instances it is unlikely the scheme will be referred back to the Panel for further review.

 

PANEL COMMENTS JULY 2015

 

The Panel has been requested to express a view on a proposed variation to this approved major proposal. The Panel understands that the buildings are at present under construction.

 

The approval granted in December 2012 by the JRPP required a reduction in the height of the tallest building on the site by two floors. The applicant, a not-for-profit organisation, wishes compensate for this loss of floor space by adding a floor to the building with frontage to Coogee Bay Road.

 

The Panel understands that this amendment to the project is already provided with required parking and infrastructure within the current approval.

 

The issues that the Panel has been requested to comment on are essentially those of bulk and visual impact. Would increasing the height of the Coogee Bay Road Building have an adverse impact on people on Coogee Bay Road and likewise on long distance views.

 

The Panel suggested that consideration could also be given to placing two floors on half the building (preferably the western half) and not increasing the height of the other half. It was also suggested that more consideration should be given to deepening the articulation between the two halves of the building (which could be easily achieved without loss of any units), as currently the Coogee Bay Road façade risks being too monolithic, particularly due to the extra height now being sought.

It was agreed that in order to enable the Panel to make a proper assessment, photo-montages should be prepared showing these changes from two locations on the opposite side of Coogee Bay Road and from the distant viewpoint used by the JRPP in its determination of the application.

 

THE APPLICANT RESPONSE

 

The applicant has respectfully considered the suggestions raised by the Panel relating to:

·      placing the two floors on the western half of the building only

·      deepening the articulation between the two halves of the building.
The project team has retained the original scheme for the following reasons:

·      placing two additional floors on the western portion of the building would have adverse impacts in terms of view loss and overshadowing on the neighbouring properties and locality. By sharing the floor space across the building minimises the such impacts

·      deepening the articulation by a further cut between the two wings of the building would not result in any significant difference in articulation to the façade along Coogee Bay Road.

 

PANEL COMMENTS JANUARY 2016

 

Six additional apartments are now proposed.  The floor area and dimensions of the new apartments have not been included in the information provided to the Panel however the subject building has grown by 782m².  The Panel considers that there are significant impacts caused by the extra size and bulk of the building.  Our concerns are as follows:

 

RL 57 - Basement 2 Plan - the proposed reduction in the size of the light well to the western unit should not occur. The bedroom of the unit is too deeply embedded in the excavated area. Contours are shown but their levels are not noted and so it is difficult to relate the floor plan to the external ground area.  The balcony of the west unit on the level above (Basement 1 Plan RL 60.3) could be reduced to allow more light and ventilation below. All the levels above could have this area of balcony removed so that more light is available on the lower floors.

 

·      Comments from Planning Officer: Noted. A condition has been included that this consent does not grant approval to increase the size of the living area to the western-most unit at Basement level 2 to provide a reasonable level of internal amenity to the occupants.  

 

Although not subject of this Section 96 consideration the planning of these levels, in the Panel’s opinion, does not meet SEPP 65; the lobbies are internal, the corridor doglegged, mean and internalised, the majority of units are single orientation and the garbage room appears to have doors directly into the corridor. The levels of the paths are not shown so it is not know if are they raised or ramped.

 

·      Comments from Planning Officer: The comments relating to the internalised lobby areas, the dog-legged nature of the corridors, the single orientation of majority of the units and the access of the garbage room does not bear any relationship to the subject section 96 modification and was subject to consent under the original development application.

 

The central balcony area that adjoins the two buildings makes the bulk monolithic and could be removed to increase light, air and articulation. Apartments are generally oversized and could be reduced without losing bedrooms.

 

·      Comments from Planning Officer: The connection between the central balconies at the Level 04 will not contribute to any additional visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape. The approved balconies of the northern building block adjoining the eastern and western wings of the building are connected through a planter and the visual bulk will remain consistent with the original development consent. At Level 05, a condition of consent has been included that the balcony on the western edge of the eastern wing of the northern tower be deleted to improve the amenity to the lower level apartment.

 

The Panel has noted that the building is bulky and should be more articulated. A visit to the building under construction clearly shows its bulk (a combination of unrelieved width, height and depth) has a heavy presence on Coogee Bay Road. Such articulation has not been attempted.  It is proposed that the building is bigger, more bulky and less articulated.  Images have been provided in the SEE to demonstrate that there would be little difference if the building was more articulated however these images do not portray the extra daylight that would be available. A building separation would also allow for more vistas and breezes.

 

·      Comments from Planning Officer: There is no recourse to improve the level of articulation to the eastern and western wings of the northern tower given they have been granted development consent by the Joint Regional Planning Panel. The Section 96 modification involves strictly minor modifications to the building envelope and an additional storey to the northern tower. The façade expression of the upper floor levels will generally remain consistent with the approved design scheme and the lower levels in terms of the use of materials and external finishes to the building. Furthermore, it should be noted that the upper floor additions comprises of a reduced building envelope and greater separation is provided between the eastern and western wings at the top most levels which offers distinction to the two tower envelopes. 

 

On the southern facade there are some overlooking issues where bedrooms of different apartments are close and view lines possible and glazed lobbies look back into bedrooms areas as well.

 

·      Comments from Planning Officer: The section 96 modifications do not involve any significant changes to the southern façade. The new upper floor level of the eastern and western wing is significantly separated to the central tower and will not compromise the visual privacy levels of the occupants. The southern façade will not contribute to significant overlooking impacts and will offer a reasonable level of visual and acoustic privacy between the two buildings.

 

As the top of the building is not well resolved - the number of steps and styles make for a weak and confused facade and profile against the sky (Perspectives 01 and 02).

 

·      Comments from Planning Officer: The new upper floor addition is contained entirely within the building footprint of the eastern and western wings of the northern tower with the front façade comprising mostly of translucent glazing along the visible facades from the streetscape. The proposal includes the use of lightweight materials to lessen the visual bulk of the new upper floor addition and the style and design of the top most level will generally remain consistent with the approved development of the lower level apartments. The visual appearance of the upper floor addition against the sky is acceptable given the roof comprises of a low profile skillion roof form which minimises the visual bulk of the building.

 

Perspectives 04 and 05 show the building as seen across the amphitheatre of the Coogee basin. While the Panel has no issue in principle with new tall buildings visible on the ridgeline, the additional height sought makes the building much more prominent, and clearly diminishes the visibility of the mature tree canopies which for long have been such a characteristic element of this site and the wider Randwick / Coogee environment. In the Panel’s assessment, the extra height would make the foreground buildings merge with the taller building behind, giving them more prominence than the tree canopy. Therefore the Panel does not support the extra height and bulk being sought in the current Section 96 Application.

 

·       Comments from Planning Officer: The view of the proposed development from the Coogee Basin is acceptable given the additional building height will remain within the building height plane between the adjoining buildings including the central tower development and the Clinical Sciences Building and Edmund Blacket Building at the Prince of Wales Hospital. Both buildings extend beyond the mature tree line as seen from the Coogee Basin and will not be out of character from the built form of the neighbouring buildings as seen from a distance. With regards to the Perspective 05 image, it should be noted that the additional storey height will remain dwarfed by the central tower development which is significantly higher than that of the proposed development. The northern building block which lies in the foreground will visually remain of a smaller and less obtrusive scale in comparison to the central tower and will not contribute to the perceivable visual bulk and scale of the development.

 

5.     Technical Officers Comments:

 

5.1   Heritage Planning Officer

 

The following comments have been received by Council’s Heritage Planning Officer:

 

The Site

The subject site was formerly part of the Brigidine Convent site which had frontages to St. Paul’s Street, Coogee Bay Road and Daintrey Crescent.  In 2004 the original site was sub divided into three- the convent site in Coogee Bay Road, the school site with St. Paul’s Street and Aeolia Street frontages, and the subject site.  All three sites, “Aeolia”, Brigidine convent and chapels, and associated boundary walls, landscape and gardens, are listed as heritage items under Randwick LEP 2012.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for “Aeolia” notes that the site commands sweeping views to the east and west and contains many mature Moreton Bay fig trees.  The Inventory Sheet notes that the building stands on an eminence, screened from Coogee Bay Road by a fine stand of trees.  The nearby Ritz Cinema in St Pauls Street is listed as a heritage item and The Spot heritage conservation area includes adjacent properties in Perouse Road and St Pauls Street.  The sandstone and brick retaining walls on Council land along Coogee Bay Road are also listed as a heritage item. 

 

Background

The original application proposed a seniors housing development, providing a 113 bed residential care facility and 82 serviced self-care units, in the form of three separate buildings.  The building at the northern end of the site, facing Coogee Bay Road is to comprise 7 levels of self-care units, stepping from west to east with the fall of the land.  The building in the south western half of the site fronting St Pauls Street and Daintrey Crescent is to comprise 6 and 7 levels containing the residential care facility.  The building in the centre part of the site is to comprise 10 levels of self-care units.  Two basement levels are to be provided with vehicular access from St Pauls Street and pedestrian access from Coogee Bay Road, St Pauls Street and Daintrey Crescent. 

 

A previous Section 96 application for change to a consent condition was approved in May 2014.  The development is now under construction. 

 

 

Proposal

A further Section 96 application has been received which proposes an additional storey to the northern (Coogee Bay Road) buildings. 

 

Submission

A thorough Conservation Analysis and Guidelines by Clive Lucas Stapleton and Partners was completed for the Brigidine College and Convent site in 1998.  The original application was accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Urbis Pty. Ltd, with landscape input provided by Chris Betteridge of Musecape.  The HIS provided the following Statement of Significance “the site has the historical, associational and aesthetic significance at a local level, particularly for ‘The Grove’ on the Coogee Bay Road side of the site, but its heritage values have been compromised by changes of use, lack of maintenance and loss of original fabric.  It retains some evidence of its former use as a pleasure garden, particularly derived from the large mature Moreton Bay Fig trees which enhance the setting of the adjoining ‘Aeolia’, the streetscape of Coogee Bay Road and the Randwick townscape generally.”  The HIS assessed the impact of the proposal on nearby heritage items including ‘Aeolia’ and the Ritz Cinema, and The Spot heritage conservation area. 

 

The HIS noted that the new buildings have been located with regard to the significant trees and walls on the site, with the buildings located within areas currently without significant vegetation, that have been extensively modified, and are relatively level.  The HIS considered that the new buildings have a height that respects the tree canopy and the views from the first floor verandah of ‘Aeolia’ on the Brigidine convent site.  The HIS considered that the landscape retained on both the St Pauls Street frontage and ‘The Grove’ fronting Coogee Bay Road would provide a strong framework for the proposal so that it does not detrimentally impact on the surrounding significant items and the locality.  The HIS noted that the landscape proposal would also restore elements of ’The Grove’ gardens, to integrate them with the historic gardens on the site. 

 

The current application has been accompanied by a Heritage Impact Statement letter prepared by Urbis.  The HIS considers that due to the topography of the site, the Coogee Bay Road building sits relatively low in the landscape, compared to other buildings on the site, and the new height will sit considerably lower than the building to the south.  The HIS advises that the northern elevation of the Coogee Bay Road building will not be readily visible from ‘Aeolia’ and therefore have no additional impact on views to and from this significant building , and will similarly have no additional impact on views to and from the nearby conservation areas. 

 

Comments

Heritage comments on the original application addressed the relationship of the gardens to ‘Aeolia’, views to ‘Aeolia’ from within the subject site and from the surrounding area, views from ‘Aeolia’, visibility in relation to The Ritz cinema and The Spot heritage conservation area, landscape management, and boundary walls and retaining walls.  Heritage comments concluded that, subject to consent conditions, the proposal would reasonably maintain views to and from the site and would not be overly dominant in relation to its built and landscape context.  Consent conditions were included in relation to materials and finishes, retaining walls, and conservation works. 

 

The proposed Coogee Bay Road buildings occupy a section of the original gardens in the north eastern corner of the site.  The HIS and supplementary submission note that ‘The Grove’ historically comprised a more defined landscape concentrated on the north western boundary of the site.  1943 aerial photographs show established trees in the north western corner with sparser vegetation in the north east corner.  ‘The Grove’ now features large mature Moreton Bay and Port Jackson figs, as well as dense undergrowth of mainly invasive weeds, together with a number of eucalypts planted along the Coogee Bay Road boundary in the 1970s. 

 

A Tree Management Plan was prepared for existing vegetation to ensure that significant trees are able to survive in conjunction with the development and Tree Assessment drawings indicated retention of a substantial number of significant trees on the site which contribute to its heritage values and assist in screening the new development. 

 

The proposed amendments will not further impact on the relationship of the gardens to ‘Aeolia’, views to ‘Aeolia’ from within the subject site, views from ‘Aeolia’, visibility in relation to The Ritz cinema and The Spot heritage conservation area, landscape management, or boundary walls and retaining walls. 

 

Views towards ‘Aeolia and the gardens from the surrounding area

In terms of aesthetic significance, the HIS considers that the mature canopy of figs make an important contribution to the streetscape of Coogee Bay Road and the Randwick townscape.  The Arboricultural Report and Tree Management Plans indicate that all 18 of the most significant trees (No.1 rating) on the subject site and the adjoining site are to be retained, as well as 10 of the 22 No.2 rating trees.  As the footprint of the northern buildings is unchanged, it appears that there will be no additional impact on the existing tree canopy, maintaining the aesthetic significance of the site. 

 

‘Aeolia’ is set well back from Coogee Bay Road, with minimal visibility in the streetscape due to the topography and vegetation of the site.  The proposed northern building is considerably closer to Coogee Bay Road than ‘Aeolia’- having adopted similar front setbacks to the adjacent buildings to the east, but will be several levels higher.  The Coogee Bay Road photomontages (Perspectives 01, 02 and 03) indicate that the enlarged northern building relies on new in-ground and balcony planting to integrate it with the landscape character of this street frontage.  As compared to the submitted perspectives, inspections from the same viewpoints to the west along Coogee Bay Road (Perspectives 1 and 2) at this point in time indicate improved screening of the enlarged northern building by existing planting within ‘The Grove’.  The enlarged northern building in any case will remain in scale with adjacent development and plantings. 

 

The extensive north to east viewscape offers the best opportunities of appreciating the intactness and scale of the original 19th century landscape design.  Despite the removal of existing vegetation in the north eastern corner of the site, the extent of the gardens can still be appreciated from the surrounding area, including viewpoints in Dunningham Reserve at Coogee Beach and Glen Avenue on the opposite side of Glebe Gully.  Perspective 04 (Dunningham Reserve) and Perspective 05 (Glen Avenue) in the SEE submission confirm that the enlarged northern building will remain in scale with the tree canopy on the site and will not impact on public appreciation of the landscape values of the original gardens. 

 

Perspective 05 (Glen Avenue) in the SEE submission indicates that the northern elevation of ‘Aeolia’ and the Kilbride/Tully wing? on the Brigidine site will remain visible from the high ground on the eastern side of Glebe Gully.  Perspective 04 (Dunningham Reserve) indicates that views of ‘Aeolia’ from further to the east are remain obscured, not by the enlarged northern building, but by existing mature trees on the sites. 

 

Conclusion

The current proposal will not affect the relationship between ‘Aeolia’ and its historic garden, including ‘The Grove’ immediately to the east.  The current proposal will not affect views to ‘Aeolia’ from within the subject site, or views from ‘Aeolia’.  The northern building has no visibility in relation to The Ritz cinema and The Spot heritage conservation area.  The current proposal will not impact on views towards ‘Aeolia’s’ gardens from the surrounding area, as the enlarged northern Coogee Bay Road building will not have significantly increased visibility, and the prominence of the historic gardens will be maintained. 

Recommendation

The following conditions should be included in any consent:

 

·      The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the enlarged sections of the Coogee Bay Road building are to be consistent with materials and finishes which were approved for the original building.  Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

6.     External Referral Comments:

 

6.1   Sydney Airport Corporation Limited

 

The following comments have been received by the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited:

 

Sydney Airport received the above application from you.

 

This location lies within an area defined in schedules of the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations which limit the height of structures to 15.24 metres above existing ground height (AEGH) without prior approval of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

 

The application sought approval for the PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT to a height of 94.5 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD).

 

In my capacity as Airfield Design Manager and an authorised person of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) under Instrument Number: CASA 229/11, in this instance, I have no objection to the erection of this development to a maximum height of 94.5 metres AHD. Should you wish to exceed this height a new application must be submitted.

 

Should the height of any temporary structure and/or equipment be greater than 15.24 metres AEGH, a new approval must be sought in accordance with the Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations Statutory Rules 1988 No. 161.

 

Construction cranes may be required to operate at a height significantly higher than that of the proposed controlled activity and consequently, may not be approved under the Airports (Protection of Airspace) Regulations.

 

Sydney Airport advises that approval to operate construction equipment (i.e. cranes) should be obtained prior to any commitment to construct.

 

Information required by Sydney Airport prior to any approval is set out in Attachment A.

"Prescribed airspace" includes "the airspace above any part of either an Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) or Procedures for Air Navigation Services – Aircraft Operations (PANS-OPS) surface for the airport (Regulation 6(1)).

 

The height of the prescribed airspace at this location is 120 metres above AHD.

 

Planning for Aircraft Noise and Public Safety Zones

Current planning provisions (s.117 Direction 3.5 NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979) for the assessment of aircraft noise for certain land uses are based on the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF). The current ANEF for which Council may use as the land use planning tool for Sydney Airport was endorsed by Air services in December 2012 (Sydney Airport 2033 ANEF).

 

Whilst there are currently no national aviation standards relating to defining public safety areas beyond the airport boundary, it is recommended that proposed land uses which have high population densities should be avoided.

 

7.     Section 96 Assessment:

 

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

(a)  it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

(b)  it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

 

(c)  it has notified the application in accordance with:

 

(i)    the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)    a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

 

(d)  it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

 

Council is required to determine whether the proposed modifications with particular regards to the additional storeys to the eastern and western wings of the northern building block will constitute “substantially the same as the development which was originally granted for which consent was originally granted”. The “substantially the same” test has been the subject of case law and is relatively settled.

 

The “substantially the same” test requires Council to undertake a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the consent before the proposed modification and after the modification. Moto Projects (No. 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 280 describes the following:

 

The requisite factual finding obviously requires a comparison between the development, as currently approved, and the development as proposed to be modified. The result of the comparison must be a finding that the modified development is “essentially or materially” the same as the (currently) approved development.

 

The comparative task does not merely involve a comparison of the physical features or components of the development as current approved and modified where that comparative exercise is undertaken in some type of sterile vacuum. Rather, the comparison involves an appreciation, qualitative and quantitative, of the developments being compared in their proper contexts (including the circumstances in which the development consent was granted).     

 

A qualitative and quant