RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 22 March 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that an Ordinary Council Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 6:00pm

 

Prayer and Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

Prayer

Almighty God,

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

Acknowledgement of the local indigenous people

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Ordinary Council Meeting - 23 February 2016

Extraordinary Council Meeting - 27 February 2016

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Council by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Audio/video recording of meetings prohibited without permission;

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

Mayoral Minutes

MM10/16   Waiving the Fees - Fundraising Walk..................................... 1   

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

Urgent Business


 

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting required)

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act, the General Manager is required to keep a register of Councillor 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.

CP7/16     23 Mermaid Ave, Maroubra (DA/372/2015)............................ 3

CP8/16     18 McGowen Avenue, Malabar (DA/26/2015/A).................... 33

CP9/16     68 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick (DA/610/2015).................... 45

CP10/16    325-327 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/695/2015)..................... 59

CP11/16    14 Clifton Road, Clovelly (DA/636/2014/A).......................... 93

CP12/16    58 Pauling Avenue, Coogee (DA/781/2015).......................... 99

CP13/16    68 Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/600/2015)................. 105

CP14/16    Planning Proposal - 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington.......................................................... 115

CP15/16    Planning Proposal – 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington....... 131

Director City Planning Reports (record of voting NOT required)

CP16/16    Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy & Guidelines....... 147

CP17/16    Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Issues Paper and International Design Competition....................................... 151

CP18/16    Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 19 November, 2015 to 10 March, 2016................. 159

CP19/16    Cultural and Community Grant Program - Recommended Allocations - March 2016................................................... 167

General Manager's Reports

Nil

Director City Services Reports

Nil

Director Governance & Financial Services Reports

GF8/16     Investment Report - February 2016................................... 175

GF9/16     Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW - November 2015 - Office of Local Government publication.................... 183  

Petitions

Motion Pursuant to Notice

NM9/16     Notice of Motion from Cr Shurey –  Sealing the Maroubra Bowling Club site for community use in perpetuity.............. 185

NM10/16   Notice of Motion from Cr Stavrinos - Compulsory "Scores on Doors" ............................................................................ 187

NM18/16   Notice of Motion by Cr Andrews - Proposed Amendment to Council’s Hall Hire Policy................................................... 189  

Closed Session

CS1/16     Quotation for the Purchase of a Street Sweeper and Gully Eductor - No. Q2016-19

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

 

GF9/16     Tender for the Supply and Delivery of Print, Associated Products and Services - No 8/2015 SSROC

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

 

GF10/16   Proposal for Extension of Street Banner Printing and Installation Contract (Tender T06/11)

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

GF11/16   Business Systems Project Resourcing - Requirement to Engage Consultant

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

 

GF12/16   Proposal to Extend Civic Signage Contract

This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 10A(2) (d) Of the Local Government Act, as it deals with commercial information of a confidential nature that would, if disclosed (i) prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied it; or (ii) confer a commercial advantage on a competitor of the Council; or (iii) reveal a trade secret.

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil.  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Mayoral Minute No. MM10/16

 

Subject:                  Waiving the Fees - Fundraising Walk

Folder No:               F2016/00096

Author:                    The  Mayor, Cr Noel D'Souza      

 

Introduction

 

Correspondence has been received from Ms Strana Borovina, National Events and Fundraising Manager, Children’s Tumour Foundation.  Ms Borovina requests the waiving of the Application Fee of $170.00 to host her fundraising event on 29 May 2016.

 

Issues

 

Ms Borovina is hosting the ‘Walk of Hope’ which is a charity walk from Maroubra Beach to Bondi Beach on Sunday 29 May 2016.  Ms Borovina has advised “the decision to host the event through the Randwick area is because of its iconic path with breathtaking scenery and ultimately raise much needed funds of $80,000 for Children’s Tumour Foundation.”  

 

Financial impact statement

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implications to Council is $170.00.  This amount will be funded from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund.

 

Conclusion

 

As this event is a fundraising activity for a good cause, it is recommended that the Application Fee of $170.00 be waived.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

 

a)     The fees for the “Walk of Hope” event hosted by the Children’s Tumour Foundation starting at Maroubra Beach and finishing at Bondi Beach on Sunday 29 May 2016 be waived and $170.00 be allocated from the 2016-17 Contingency Fund;

 

b)     The organisers undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event.

 

c)     The Mayor or his representative is given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

d)     The event organisers provide Council with information following the event on the number of attendees.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP7/16

 

Subject:                  23 Mermaid Ave, Maroubra (DA/372/2015)

Folder No:               DA/372/2015

Author:                    Ryan Gill, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing structures and construction of a new dwelling house and swimming pool (variation to FSR and height controls)

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               A+ Design Group

Owner:                    Ms Cynthia Cheung

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview80911.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Council for determination as the proposed development:

 

·      has a nominated value of works that exceeds $2,000,000.00, and

 

·      exceeds maximum building height and floor space ratio development standards contained in Randwick LEP 2012 by more than 10%

 

1.  Proposal

 

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing residence and pool and the construction of a multi-dwelling house with a new swimming pool and involves a variation to the floor space ratio and building height development standards.

 

Proposed building works involves the following:

 

·      Upper level facing Mermaid Ave (Level 4) – includes main entrance, home office, bedroom and bathroom, east-facing balcony with access from bedroom and office, garage to be retained and expanded to a double garage with storage.

 

·      Lower ground floor (Level 3) – comprises three bedrooms including one master with ensuite, a bathroom and east-facing balcony adjoining the three bedrooms.

 

·      Second lower ground floor (Level 2) – partly below ground, will comprise storeroom, laundry, indoor and outdoor drying spaces, a bedroom, bathroom and ‘man cave’ and east-facing terrace.

 

·      Rear lowest level (Level 1) – also partly below ground, will include a kitchen, main living and dining area, a children’s study and play room, store room, water closet and east-facing deck. A swimming pool with plant room beneath is also proposed. 

 

2.  Site

 

The site is located on the north-eastern side of Mermaid Ave, Maroubra and is legally known as Lot 12 in DP 12218. The site has a frontage to Mermaid Ave of 15.545m, an eastern boundary of 15.555m, a northern side boundary of 45.11m and a southern side boundary of 43.89m. The site area is 691.3m2.

 

The site slopes dramatically from the street towards the rear of the site, with a fall of approximately 18.2m. A three storey cement rendered residence and semi-inground pool presently occupy the site. There are no noteworthy trees or significant vegetation within or near the area that will be redeveloped.

 

The locality is characterised by low density residential development comprising single dwelling houses. As evidenced by the building work occurring at various properties in the street, the area is undergoing a period of gentrification whereby older housing stock is being demolished and replaced with larger, contemporary style dwellings.

 

3.  Key Issues

 

3.1.    Building Height and Floor Space Ratio (clause 4.6 variation)

The proposal contravenes both clause 4.3 ‘Height of buildings’ and clause 4.4 ‘Floor space ratio’ of Randwick LEP 2013 as summarised below:

 

Building height

Standard:

9.5m

Proposed building height:

11.1m

Percentage variation:

16.8%


 

Floor space ratio

Standard:

0.6:1

Proposed floor space ratio:

0.71:1

Percentage variation:

18.3%

 

The applicant has submitted a written justification to address the contravention of the standard, pursuant to Clause 4.6.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Council has received a written request from the applicant that seeks to justify the contravention of the height of buildings and floor space ratio development standards.

 

Arguments are provided as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessing officer comments

 

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

 

Building height

 

·      The area of non-compliance relates to the awning on the eastern elevation of level 4 of the development, best illustrated in the southern elevation, an extract of which is provided at figure 1. As figure 1 demonstrates, the extent of non-compliance is minor.

 

Figure 1: Extent of non-compliance (red line indicates 9.5m height limit)

 

·      That part of the building which exceeds maximum building height, being the awning above the balcony on the eastern elevation of the uppermost level, does not contribute greatly to the visual bulk and scale of the development, given its lightweight appearance.

 

·      The awning will not be visible from the street and will therefore have no impact on streetscape character.

 

·      The applicant has submitted a detailed view analysis which demonstrates that the awning will not obstruct views from neighbouring properties.

 

·      The applicant has submitted shadow diagrams which demonstrate that the non-compliant element of the building will not reduce solar access to the adjoining dwelling.

 

·      The awning structure will provide sun protection to east-facing bedroom and office windows thus reducing reliance on air conditioning and improving the energy efficiency of the dwelling.

 

Floor space ratio

 

·      The dwelling has been designed to step down the hillside and therefore a large portion of the gross floor area is cut into the site and situated below ground, as illustrated in figure 1. Calculations indicate that only 321m2 of the overall 489m2 of floor area will be visible above ground, which equates to an FSR of 0.46:1. The portion of the development that contributes to visible bulk and scale comfortably complies with the FSR standard of 0.6:1.

 

·      The bulk and scale of the development is considered to be compatible with the existing and emerging scale of development in the locality. A series of dwellings in the immediate locality exceed prescribed FSR limitations, some by a margin that is greater than the subject development. 

 

·      The proposed development is considered to be well articulated in that it steps down the hillside to respond to the topography of the site. That part of the development that is visible is reasonably well articulated on each elevation through physical modulation, projecting and recessed elements, appropriately located openings / privacy screens and a combination of external cladding materials. Building articulation successfully reduces the apparent bulk of the development, despite the non-compliance with the FSR development standard.

 

  Figure 2: Portion of site situated below ground level.

 

 

·      Despite not compliance with the FSR development standard, the proposed development will have no significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring or adjoining land as discussed below:

 

The applicant has submitted a visual privacy study which illustrates the position of proposed windows and balconies in relation to the window openings of neighbouring properties. This analysis demonstrates that there will be no direct views / overlooking from the proposed development to adjoining properties and thus visual privacy will be maintained.

 

The applicant has submitted elevational shadow diagrams which demonstrate that sunlight to north facing living room windows and private open spaces will be maintained for at least 3 hours between 8am and 4pm on the winter solstice. The proposal therefore meets the minimum numeric DCP requirements in regards to solar access.

 

A view loss analysis has been submitted with the application and this illustrates the extent of view loss that is anticipated as a result of the development. The view loss analysis demonstrates that the development will have no unreasonable view loss impact, given the scope of view presently enjoyed from the east-facing living room windows.

 

·      Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the development will have an adverse impact in terms of visual bulk as perceived from the primary living space of the neighbouring development at 1 Waterside Ave.

 

Figure 3 is a photograph of the subject window taken from within the living room. The wall associated with the plant room and swimming pool of the proposed development extends slightly beyond the rear alignment of the dwelling at 1 Waterside and will therefore significantly reduce the outlook from this window.

 

It is recommended that a condition of consent be imposed to reduce the depth of the rear balcony and subsequently increase the rear setback. While this will not reduce the gross floor area or the extent of non-compliance with the FSR development standard, it will reduce the physical bulk of the development and improve the amenity of neighbouring land, as illustrated in Figure 3a.

 

Figure 3: View from living room window with indicative obstruction

 

Figure 3a: View from living room window with indicative improvement

 

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

 

On the basis of arguments made by the applicant and the supplementary discussion provided above, it is considered that strict compliance with the building height and floor space ratio development standards is unreasonable and unnecessary in this instance. It has also been established that there are sufficient planning grounds, having regard to the particular circumstances of the site associated with its steep topography, to justify contravention of the standard.

 

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

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest as the development is consistent with both the relevant objectives of the ‘height of buildings’ standard, the ‘floor space ratio’ standard and the objectives of zone R2 Low Density Residential.

 

In relation to the objectives of the ‘height of buildings’ standard, the proposed development:

 

·      Is of a size and scale that is compatible with the built form in the locality which is an area undergoing gentrification and is characterised by multi-storey dwellings that cascade down, and

 

·      Is designed and located to integrate with the existing dwelling without compromising the amenity of adjoining development.

 

In relation to the objectives of the ‘floor space ratio’ standard, the proposed development:

 

·      Is of a size and scale that is compatible with both the existing desired future character of the locality, and

 

·      Is well articulated as a result of tiered configuration, modulation, projecting and recessed elements and the proposed combination of materials and thus responds to the site and context, and

 

·      Will have no significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring land in terms of view loss, overshadowing and loss of privacy.  

 

In relation to the objectives of zone R2, the proposed development:

 

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

 

·      Is compatible with the existing streetscape and built form on the site, thus contributing to the established character of the area.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

3.2.    Site coverage

 

Section 2.3 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to building site cover. The objective of the controls is to ensure new development reserves adequate unbuilt upon areas for the purpose of private open space, deep soil planting and permeable surfaces.

 

·      Control 2.3(i) states that for a site with an area of 601m2 or above, the maximum site coverage is 45% of the site area.

 

Comment: The proposed building site cover is 333m2 which equates to 48% of the site area, therefore the extent of non-compliance is marginal, in percentage terms. There are sufficient areas of private open space provided in the form of a large deck and swimming pool to support the passive recreation and leisure activities of the occupants. There are also substantial deep soil areas in both the rear and front set back areas of the site which will accommodate plant growth and allow for stormwater infiltration. The proposal is considered to satisfy the site coverage objectives despite marginal non-compliance with the numeric standard.

 

3.3.    Landscaped area

 

Section 2.4 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to landscaping and permeable surface. The objectives of the controls are to ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site, to provide screening between dwellings and to assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

·      Control 2.4 (i) states that for a site with an area of 601m2 or above, the minimum area of deep soil permeable surfaces is 35% of the site area.

 

Comment: The proposed landscaped area is 210.8m2 which equates to 30.5% of the site area. Again, this variation is marginal in percentage terms. The two primary deep soil areas are situated in the front building setback adjacent to the garage and in the rear yard. Each area has sufficient dimensions and is suitably configured to accommodate landscaping, including large shrubs.

 

There is also a strip of deep soil along the southern boundary however no landscaping us proposed in this location. Landscaping in this location would serve no purpose in terms of screening between dwellings given the elevated nature of both the subject dwelling and the dwelling at 1 Waterside Ave.

 

The landscaped area provided, although marginally non-compliant with numeric requirements, will assist with stormwater infiltration and reduce overland flow. In addition to the proposed deep soil areas, there are permeable surfaces proposed such as planter / pebble beds that will also reduce overland flow. Further, the stormwater management system collects runoff from hard surfaces and directs to a discharge pit (for absorption) before discharging over an energy dissipator and into the ocean. Therefore overland flow will not impact neighbouring properties.

 

A condition of consent will require the reduction of the lower level deck (as discussed in section 3.1 (building height and floor space ratio) of this report) which will subsequently increase the extent of landscaped area, thus reducing the extent of non-compliance. The proposal is considered to satisfy the landscaped area objectives despite marginal non-compliance with the numeric standard.

 

3.4.    External wall height

 

Section 3.2 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to building height, including specific controls relating to the height of external walls. The objectives of the controls is to ensure development establishes a suitable scale to the street and contributes to character, to ensure development height does not cause unreasonable amenity impacts on neighbouring dwellings and to ensure that form and massing respects topography of the site.

 

·      Control 3.2 (i) states that the maximum external wall height for steeply sloping sites is 8m while control (iii) allows an alternative design that departs from external wall height controls having regard to site topography, site orientation, allotment configuration and dimensions and potential impacts on amenity of adjoining properties.

 

Comment: The proposal exceeds the 8m external wall height limitation at a number of points along the building, as illustrated in Figure 4. The external wall height measures 9.5m at its greatest height, however is generally less than 9.5m.

 

Figure 4: Extent of non-compliance with wall height control

 

The non-compliance with the numeric external wall height controls is considered acceptable in the context of the subject site and locality for the following reasons:

 

-    The external walls which are non-compliant with wall height controls are not visible from the street due to the fall of the site and therefore will have no impact on streetscape character. The dwelling presents to Mermaid Ave as a single story dwelling and is of a suitable scale.

 

-    Shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the non-compliant external walls will cause no unreasonable overshadowing impacts on the neighbouring dwellings. Similarly, the non-compliant elements will not impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings in terms of visual bulk or view loss.

 

-    The extent of non-compliance is relatively minor and applies to a small portion of the proposed building, as illustrated in Figure 4. Non-compliant elements do not significantly contribute to the visual bulk of the dwelling i.e. to require strict compliance will external wall height control would result in no substantive difference in terms of bulk and scale.

 

-    Control 3.2(iii) allows for an alternative design that departs from the numeric wall height control, subject to site conditions and characteristics. In the case of the subject site, the topography has dictated the design and the result is a tiered configuration that responds to the topography. Despite the site responsive configuration, elements of the building exceed external wall height due to the steep gradient of the site.

 

Despite non-compliance with external wall height requirements, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant external wall height objectives contained in the DCP, and can be supported on this basis.

    

3.5.    Setbacks

 

Section 3.3 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to building setbacks. The objectives of the controls is to maintain a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and to ensure form and massing complement streetscape character, to ensure separation of buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access and to reserve adequate areas of private open space and deep soil planting.

 

·      Control 3.3.1 (i) states that the front setback must be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings.

 

Comment: The property to the north has a garage built to the boundary while the property to the south has a front setback of approximately 4.2m. The average of the two is therefore 2.1m. The subject site has an existing garage and high masonry fence built on the property boundary as illustrated in figure 5.

 

The application proposes the construction of a double garage to replace the existing single garage. The double garage will be situated on the front property boundary and measures 6.6m in width. The garage is positioned in this location due to the slope of the site i.e. the front setback area is the only viable position for parking facilities.

 

A 0m setback is considered acceptable in the context of this locality for the following reasons:

 

-    There is an existing garage and high masonry fence on the subject site and these structures obscure views of the house from the street. The proposed arrangement (6.6m wide double garage and metal palisade fence for the balance of the street frontage) will improve presentation to the street.

 

-    Nil setbacks, particularly in relation to garage facilities, are characteristic of the street, as illustrated in Figure 6. There are numerous examples of both single and double garages built to the front property boundary. In this regard, the proposal is consistent with predominant streetscape character.

 

 

Figure 5: Existing garage and masonry fence on property boundary.

 

 

Figure 6: Characteristic front setback

 

Despite non-compliance with front setback requirements, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant building setback objectives contained in the DCP, and can be supported on this basis.

 

·      Control 3.3.2 (i) requires that, for sites with a frontage width of > 12m, the ground and first storey are required to be set 1200mm from side boundaries and the second storey and above are to be 1800mm from the side boundaries.

 

Comment: The proposed dwelling comprises four storeys however the storeys cascade down the hillside rather than being stacked in a conventional vertical arrangement. As a result, the dwelling presents as a two to three storey dwelling as it moves down the block, as illustrated in figure 7.

 

Figure 7: Appearance of the dwelling in terms of number of storeys

 

Proposed setbacks are provided in the table below:

 

Level

Northern

Southern

Garage

-

0m

Ground

1241mm

1228mm

Lower ground

1241mm

1201mm (at nearest point)

Second lower ground

1221mm

1228mm

Third lower ground

1221mm

1228mm

 

A 0m side setback for the garage is considered acceptable in the context of the locality for the following reasons:

 

-    The proposed garage is replacing an existing structure which is also situated on the side property boundary and in this regard will have no additional impact relative to the present situation in terms of streetscape or amenity of neighbours.

 

The proposed setback of the dwelling house to the side boundaries is also considered acceptable in the circumstances for the following reasons:

 

-    The survey plan submitted with the application indicates that the existing dwelling is also situated on the southern boundary. The proposed dwelling is set 1201mm off the southern boundary at lower ground floor and 1228mm at second and third lower ground floor and is therefore an improvement on the existing situation, in terms of meeting the numeric requirements.

 

-    The three storey components of the proposed dwelling are not readily visible from the street due to the topography of the site and will therefore have no impact on streetscape character. The ground floor which is visible from the street and presents as a single storey development has an adequate setback from the northern side boundary and is consistent with streetscape character.

 

-    The applicant has demonstrated that the dwelling will have no substantial adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, visual and acoustic privacy and view loss. Those aspects of the development which have been brought into question by the owners of 1 Waterside due to perceived amenity impacts comply with building setback requirements (i.e. the third lower ground floor which presents as a two storey component and therefore requires a 1200mm setback).

 

Despite non-compliance with side setback requirements, the proposal is considered to comply with the relevant building setback objectives contained in the DCP, and can be supported on this basis.

 

·      Control 3.3.3 (i) states that a minimum rear setback of 25% of the allotment depth or 8m, whichever is the lesser, must be provided. Control (ii) indicates that rear setbacks over and above the minim requirement should be provided having regard to predominant rear setback line, view sharing and privacy and solar access to neighbouring dwellings.

 

Comment: A rear setback of 8m is proposed and therefore complies with the numeric requirement prescribed by the DCP. Council has received an objection which argues that the proposed rear setback is not appropriate given consequent impacts on the amenity of the residence at 1 Waterside Ave.

 

Matters regarding solar access, privacy and view loss are discussed at sections 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 of this report. To summarise, the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with numeric standards with regard to solar access, will not compromise privacy and will have no significant impact on view loss in the context of the views presently obtained from the living areas of 1 Waterside Ave.

 

As demonstrated in Figure 8, the rear setback of development in the subject block is inconsistent. It follows that there is no predominant rear setback pattern however it should be noted that rear setbacks are, for the most part, greater than 8m (there is only one example of a rear setback < 8m, at 17 Mermaid Ave).

 

Figure 8: Inconsistent rear setback (indicated by dotted red line)

 

Although compliant with numeric rear setback controls, it is considered that the proposed rear setback would adversely impact the amenity of 1 Waterside due to excessive visual bulk as perceived from a primary living space within the dwelling. This issue has been identified and discussed earlier in the report (see section 3.1 which relates to variations to building height and floor space ratio) and it is recommended that the depth of the deck at pool level is reduced, and the rear setback subsequently increased, in order to mitigate the impact.

 

3.6.    Solar access

 

Section 5.1 of the Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to solar access for both the subject development and neighbouring development. The objective of the controls is to ensure development retains reasonable levels of solar access to neighbouring dwellings and their private open space.

 

·      Control 5.1 (iii) states that a portion of the north facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

Comment: Council has received an objection which contains, among other things, a reference to overshadowing caused by the proposed development.

 

The northern elevation of the neighbouring residence at 1 Waterside Ave contains a single north facing living room window on the lower ground floor and a bedroom window on the floor above the living area. Elevational shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant demonstrate that solar access will be maintained to these windows for at least 3 hours between 8am and 4pm as stipulated by the DCP. Shadow diagrams are provided at Figure 9.

 

As discussed at section 4.1 (variation to building height and floor space ratio), it is recommended that a condition be imposed which will require the reduction of the deck and subsequent increase in rear setback. This amendment is aimed at reducing visual bulk and will have the added benefit of improving solar access to a primary living space.

 

 

Figure 9: Elevational shadow diagrams showing impact on living room window

 

Elevational shadow diagrams have also been submitted to demonstrate the overshadowing impacts of the development on the dwelling at 25 Mermaid Ave. This dwelling has a large dining room window and a kitchen window situated on the northern elevation. The shadow diagrams demonstrate that these windows will not be overshadowed by the proposed development and sufficient direct sunlight will be maintained.

 

3.7.    Visual privacy

 

Subsection 5.3 of Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to visual privacy between dwellings. The objective of the controls is to ensure development minimises overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintaint reasonable levels of privacy.

 

·      Control 5.3(i) states that habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings by offsetting windows, raising sill heights to 1600mm, installing fixed obscure glazing etc.

 

Comment: Council has received an objection which contains, among other things, a reference to the potential impact on privacy of the proposed development.

 

The applicant has submitted diagrams showing the location of proposed windows in elevation and their relationship to windows on neighbouring properties. There are no windows proposed on the northern elevation. Windows on the southern elevation do not oppose windows on the neighbouring property.

 

·      Control 5.3(iv) states that where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the POS or windows of an adjacent dwelling, a privacy screen must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate loss of privacy.

 

Comment: There are a series of balcony / terrace areas proposed and each are considered in terms of their overlooking potential below:

 

-    Level 4 – east facing balcony off office and another off bedroom 5. Bedroom 5 balcony has a shallow depth and will not result in overlooking of neighbouring area of POS or habitable room windows. Office balcony is approximately 3m in depth and is capable of accommodating passive recreation activities. Potential to overlook neighbouring POS is mitigated by significant level difference.

 

-    Level 3 – combined east facing balcony off bedrooms. Balcony has a relatively shallow depth and privacy screens are proposed to be installed on both side elevations. Privacy screens will ensure potential for overlooking is mitigated.

 

-    Level 2 – terrace off bedroom 4. The terrace is quite a generously sized space with a depth of approximately 6m. A wall is proposed on the southern elevation of the terrace and measures 1800mm above floor level, thus preventing any cross viewing between the subject terrace and the neighbouring terrace at 1 Waterside Ave.

 

-    Level 1 – deck and pool area off primary living space. The deck and pool have a combination of walls and privacy screens on both side elevations and this will serve to mitigate potential overlooking. The wall on the southern elevation has an opening which directly opposes a bedroom window at 1 Waterside Ave. Roughly two thirds of the opening is filled with a privacy screen comprised of a series of vertical elements. The applicant intends to rely on landscaping for privacy for the remainder of the opening. To ensure privacy is maintained, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to require that the fixed privacy screen extends the length of the opening.

 

Proposed balconies, decks and terraces are appropriately located and designed to mitigate potential for overlooking. Provided a condition is imposed regarding the installation of a privacy screen to the southern elevation of the deck on Level 1, privacy will be adequately preserved for both occupants of the subject dwelling and neighbouring dwellings.

 

3.8.    View Loss

 

Subsection 5.6 of Randwick DCP 2013 contains controls relating to view loss. The objectives of the controls is to acknowledge the value of views to significant scenic elements and to ensure that development is skillfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

·      Control 5.6(i) states that the location and design of dwellings must reasonably maintain existing view corridors or vistas from neighbouring dwellings.

 

Comment: Council has received submissions from 25 Mermaid Ave and 1 Waterside Ave concerning potential view loss as a result of the development. The applicant has prepared a view loss analysis which assesses the impact of views from specific spaces within neighbouring dwellings.

 

It is evident from the view loss analysis and inspections of the site that existing views from neighbouring properties will be partially obscured by the proposed development. Although some view loss will occur, it is considered that view corridors and vistas from neighouring dwellings will be reasonably maintained and will therefore comply with the DCP requirement. 

 

Notwithstanding the above, it is prudent to consider the potential view loss against the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle for views, established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council [2004], for each of the potentially affected properties:

 

25 Mermaid Ave

 

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 view obtained from the living and dining room of 25 Mermaid is a panoramic view of the coastline and ocean, including the headland to the north. The affected part of the view is a corridor to the north and includes part of the headland (primarily the vegetation above the escarpment) as well as views of dwellings fronting Liguria Street.

 

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 view affected is from the dining and kitchen windows on the northern elevation and is obtained across the side boundary. The views from the dining area are obtained from both sitting and standing positions while the view from the kitchen window is obtained only from a standing position (noting the high sill of the kitchen window) as illustrated in photographs provided at Image 1 and 2.

 

Image 1: Photograph from dining room window (sitting)

 

 

Image 2: Photograph from kitchen window (standing)

 

The objector has explained that the views obtained from both the dining and kitchen windows have been compromised to some degree by the dwelling constructed at 1 Waterside Avenue. The objector has recently raised the sill height of the kitchen window to approximately 1.5m above floor level to limit overlooking onto the roof of the neighbouring dwelling.

 

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.

 

Images 3 and 4 have been marked to illustrate the anticipated building form and the subsequent loss of view while Figure 10 illustrates the approximate scope of view enjoyed from various positions within the dwelling.

 

Image 3: Indicative view loss from dining room window

 

Image 4: Indicative view loss from kitchen window

 

Figure 10: Approximate scope of view from 25 Mermaid Ave (includes intermittent obstruction)

 

The above images, although indicative, suggest that anticipated view loss is minor (in the case of the dining room) to moderate (in the case of the kitchen window), with further detail provided below:

 

Dining room - The view that is likely to be lost from the north facing dining room window is primarily of vegetation and dwellings above the escarpment. Panoramic views of the ocean including coast and water interface and horizon views are obtained from this space therefore the view loss is negligible to minor in the context of views obtained from the dining room and adjacent living spaces.

 

Kitchen – The view that is likely to be lost from the kitchen window, as is the case from the dining room window, relates to the headland to the north however the proposal is also likely to obscure part of the horizon view and coast to water interface view. The view loss impact is considered to be minor to moderate in this case however this is balanced by the fact that significant views are obtained from within this space through east facing windows. It is again noted that the objector has recently raised the sill height of this window which has subsequently diminished views obtained from the window, particularly for shorter people.

 

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: As described throughout this report, the proposed development is non-compliant with a number of development standards and planning controls, most notably floor space ratio and building height as well as external wall height. The following points are made in regard to the non-compliant elements of the building:

 

Building height – The non-compliant element of the building is the awning projecting beyond the east facing external wall at ground (i.e. street) level. The awning does not contribute significantly to view loss and therefore its deletion or modification is not warranted on the basis of view loss.

 

FSR – The applicant has demonstrated that a large portion of the development sits below ground level and does not contribute to visual bulk i.e. an entirely compliant development may well result in the same level of view loss if, hypothetically, the applicant were to delete that portion of the GFA which is below ground. The floor space could perhaps be distributed elsewhere to mitigate the extent of view loss however there is a risk that a redistribution of floor space would create non-compliances / impacts elsewhere. Given the minor to moderate nature of view loss resulting from the development it is considered unreasonable to require a redesign of the development or indeed to refuse the application on this basis.

 

External wall height – As discussed at section 3.4 (external wall height) of this report, elements of the building exceed the numerical external wall height control however the DCP allows for this in certain circumstances, including instances where the site has a dramatic topography. The elements of the proposal that exceed external wall height do not contribute markedly to view loss and to require a redesign on this basis would be unreasonable.

 

An alternative design would certainly mitigate the extent of view loss associated with the proposal, particularly in relation to views obtained from the kitchen window. However, given the low significance of the views that are likely to be lost relative to the views that will be maintained, it is considered unreasonable to refuse the proposal or require a redesign.       

 

1 Waterside Ave

 

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 view obtained from the living area and rear balcony of 1 Waterside Ave is a panoramic view of the coastline and ocean, including the headland to the north. The affected part of the view is a corridor to the north and includes part of the headland (primarily the vegetation above the escarpment) as well as views of dwellings fronting Liguria Street.

 

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 view affected is from a living room window on the northern elevation and is obtained across the side boundary. The view from the living room window is obtained from both sitting and standing positions as illustrated in the photograph provided at Image 5.

 

Image 5: Photograph from living room window (sitting)

 

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.

 

Image 6 has been marked to illustrate the anticipated building form and the subsequent loss of view while Figure 11 illustrates the approximate scope of view enjoyed from various positions within the dwelling.

 

Image 6: Indicative view loss from living room window

 

Figure 11: Approximate scope of view from 1 Waterside Ave

 

The above image, although indicative, suggests that the anticipated view loss from the north facing living room window is catastrophic (in that the whole view will be obscured). However, in the context of the views obtained through east facing windows, and bearing in mind the low value nature of the view being obscured, view loss considered to be minor.

 

5.  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: As described throughout this report, the proposed development is non-compliant with a number of development standards and planning controls, most notably floor space ratio and building height as well as external wall height. The element of the proposed building that is contributing to the view loss from 1 Waterside is compliant with building height, external wall height and setback requirements.

 

A more skillful design (i.e. a design with a larger rear setback) would reduce the extent of view loss however given the nature of the view that is obscured it is not considered reasonable to require a redesign on this basis.

 

Notwithstanding, the visual bulk of the development when perceived from this north facing living room window is significant, as discussed at section 4.1 (variation to building height and floor space ratio) of this report. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to reduce the extent of the deck area and subsequently increase the rear setback of the development. If this condition is implemented, the extent of view loss from this space will be reduced.

 

4.  Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The application has also been re-notified following submission of additional information including view loss assessment, shadow diagrams and site coverage details. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

25 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Concerns that the proposed extension will result in a further obstruction to our existing view.

A view loss assessment has been undertaken and it is considered that view loss resulting from the development is not unreasonable. See section 3.8 (view loss) for further discussion.

Concerns that the proposed extension will result in overshadowing of the property, particularly in the afternoon.

Elevational shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the proposed development will not reduce solar access to north facing living room windows. See section 3.6 (solar access) for further discussion.

 


 

1 Waterside Avenue, Maroubra (two submissions)

 

Issue

Comment

Indicates that the proposal will result in a significant loss of land / water interface views obtained from the living areas over the rear property boundary.

A view loss assessment has been undertaken and it is considered that view loss resulting from the development is not unreasonable. A condition of consent relating to the rear setback will mitigate view loss from the living space within the objectors dwelling. See section 3.8 (view loss) for further discussion.

States that the non-compliant side setback and building height exacerbates privacy impacts due to proximity of windows and because setbacks do not allow for any mitigating measures.

Windows and private open space areas will not result in any significant loss of privacy. Where there is potential for overlooking, privacy screens are to be installed. See section 3.7 (visual privacy) for further discussion. Also see section 3.5 (setbacks) for discussion regarding non-compliant setback.

States that the development contributes to overshadowing and will reduce solar access to the neighbouring property to unacceptable levels.

Elevational shadow diagrams submitted with the application indicate that the proposed development will not reduce solar access to north facing living room windows. See section 3.6 (solar access) for further discussion.

The proposed built form is not compatible with the surrounding development. In particular the rear setback is inconsistent with the scale, design and amenity of neighbouring development.

Contrary to the statements made by the objector, the proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with surrounding development and compatible with the emerging character of the area. Built form is closely related to FSR which is discussed in more detail as section 3.1 (building height and floor space ratio). In relation to rear setback, detailed discussion is provided at section 3.5 (setbacks).

 

Non-compliant building height will result in significant environmental impacts including environmental amenity, liveability and enjoyment of the primary living areas within 1 Waterside Ave.

The non-compliant aspect of the proposal in relation to building height is the awning projecting from the eastern elevation at ground (street) level. This element of the development is not considered to have a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. Further discussion is provided at section 3.1 (building height and floor space ratio).

 

The size and bulk of the development is entirely incompatible with the bulk, scale and character of the locality as a result of non-compliant setback.

The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with surrounding development and compatible with the emerging character of the area. Built form is closely related to FSR which is discussed in more detail as section 3.1 (building height and floor space ratio). In relation to setbacks, detailed discussion is provided at section 3.5 (setbacks).

 

18 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Objects to the side setback of the proposed dwelling, stating that a 2m side setback would be necessary to maintain streetscape character.

The proposed setbacks are considered to be compatible with setbacks of development in the street. See section 3.5 (setbacks) for discussion regarding non-compliant setback.

 

20 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

 

Issue

Comment

Concerned that the proposed development will be higher than the existing dwelling.

Ridge height of the existing dwelling is RL40.85. The maximum height of the proposed dwelling is RL40.05 i.e. lower than existing.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been assessed against the relevant RLEP 2012 standards and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and is considered to be acceptable, despite numerous areas of non-compliance. The assessment demonstrates that key areas of non-compliance, including FSR, building height, external wall height and building setbacks can be justified due to the nature of surrounding development and also due to the fact that there will be no significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties. It is recommended that Council determine the application by granting consent subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/372/2015 for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a new dwelling house and swimming pool (variation to FSR and height controls), at 23 Mermaid Avenue, 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.      A privacy screen shall be installed in the opening on the southern external wall adjacent to the deck on level 1. 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.

 

b.      Reduce the depth of the level 1 deck by 1.4m to achieve a subsequent 1.4m increase in the rear setback of the development. That is, the eastern external wall of the development is to be moved 1.4m in a westward direction.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 23 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP8/16

 

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

Folder No:               DA/26/2015/A

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification to delete condition 2(a) and (b) and authorise the use of the outbuilding and associated driveway

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Mr J Spiteri

Owner:                    Mr D J Wilmot

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=deba6bb8-ffc6-4f22-aac1-97aabf9eb0f4&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

No submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Section 96 application is referred to Council as the original application was determined by Council.

 

Proposal

 

The section 96 modification seeks to delete condition 2(a) and (b) and authorise the works and use of the outbuilding and associated fill and paved area within the rear yard of the site.

 

Application history

 

DA/26/2015: At the Planning Committee meeting on 8 September 2015 Council approved the use of the illegally constructed basement level under the dwelling and use of the internal alterations at ground and first floor level. Conditions 2a and 2b were imposed which excluded the use of the outbuilding and associated driveway and fill in the rear yard of the site.

 

Condition 2a and b read as follows:

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

 

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

 

a.     This consent does not include approval for any internal/external building works carried out prior to the issuing of this consent

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

Site

 

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

 

Site history

 

Council’s mapping at 2004, 2006 and 2008 shows that the outbuilding was constructed in around 2006 and the associated paved area between the dwelling and the outbuilding was constructed after 2006 and before 2008.

 

These maps show that the outbuilding has been in existence for at least 10 years to date and the paving has been in existence for at least 8 years to date. It is noted that Council’s Building Regulatory Officers indicate no objection to the physical works for the basement and the outbuilding remaining subject to development consent being issued for the use of these areas

 

2004 interactive mapping showing the rear yard of No. 18 McGowen is predominately grassed area.

 

2008 Interactive mapping showing the paved area constructed on site.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed Section 96 application in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. No submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

Section 96 Assessment

 

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

 

 

Substantially the Same Development

 

Council may only approve an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

 

The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original development. An assessment of the key issues is carried out below.

 

Key Issues

 

·      Condition 2a

 

At the outset, the part of this Section 96 application seeking to delete condition 2a must fail for the following reasons:

 

Condition 2a merely excludes approval for illegal physical works prior to the development application being submitted and finally determined. Council is unable to issue retrospective development consent to works carried out.

 

Importantly, Condition 2a doesn’t exclude the assessment as to the suitability of both the physical works and its future use. In this respect, the original determination whilst not approving the illegal physical works determined that the basement level and alterations at ground and first floor level were able to be authorised for use.

 

The retention of condition 2a does not affect the assessment of the application seeking to delete condition 2b that is the retention of and use of the outbuilding and associated works to the rear yard.

 

·      Condition 2b

 

Condition 2b was imposed as it was considered that the resultant building was unsuitable for the subject site due to non-compliances with Section 2.4 Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces and Section 7.4 Outbuildings in the Comprehensive Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP).

 

The relevant objectives for Landscaping and Permeable surfaces (Section 2.4), and Outbuildings (7.4) contained within Part C1 Low Density Residential of the Comprehensive Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP) are referenced as follows:

 

•      Section 2.4 Landscape and Permeable Surfaces

 

·      To ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site to achieve a visual balance between building structures and open space.

·      To assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

•      Section 7.4 Outbuildings

 

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

 

The applicant seeks to address by way of a merit assessment the above objectives and where relevant their reasons are addressed in the assessment of the objectives.

 

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

·      To ensure landscaped areas are effectively distributed on the site to achieve a visual balance between building structures and open space.

 

The applicant argues that the subject site is solid rock and no deep soil permeable area exists. The existing site coverage of 50.5% complies with the Council maximum of 55% and therefore the Council requirements for open space are satisfied.

 

It is acknowledged that the level of open space within the site is compliant however there is an imbalance between the distribution of the type of open space and the outbuilding structure itself. This is a direct consequence of both the type of fill provided in the rear of the site and the location of the outbuilding. The higher land levels, hard surface paved areas and distribution of built form and massing relative to the neighbouring properties bears little resemblance to the pre-existing natural topography of the site and those on neighbouring properties thus disturbing the visual balance within the site.

 

The applicant argues that the outbuilding was constructed above an existing rear boundary retaining wall, above a part of the site that had a sharp dip in it and that when considered in this context the outbuilding will have an effective height of only 3m above this retaining wall which is below the 3.6m maximum permitted under the RDCP 2013.

 

It is not considered that this is a justifiable argument on the basis that firstly the fill carried out within the rear yard up to 1.3m contravenes the controls and objectives under Section 4.6 Earthworks of the RDCP which seeks to maintain or minimise change to the natural ground levels and to ensure backfilling of a site does not result in unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing and privacy impacts on the adjoining dwellings which are addressed further below. Secondly, the location of the outbuilding on top of this retaining wall across a large portion of the site represents an excessive scale and imbalance of open space and building structures on site relative to the neighbouring properties. The neighbouring properties contain smaller scaled outbuildings on lower land level and larger areas of open spaces including permeable landscaping that softens the appearance of outbuildings within the rear yards.

 

As a consequence of the above, it is not considered that the distribution of open space and building structures achieves a good visual balance.

 

The added impacts on neighbouring properties associated with the distribution of open space and building structures on site adverse impacts on their visual amenity and privacy.

 

Visual Amenity

 

The additional fill with outbuilding above creates an excessive distribution of built form and massing when compared with the natural topography and distribution of open space and outbuildings on adjoining properties at No. 16 McGowen Ave. (north western side boundary) and No. 53 Austral Street (rear boundary). Photo 1 and 2 below respectively show the subject site and outbuilding as viewed from these neighbouring properties. The photos show the neighbouring properties display a greater distribution of open space area and smaller sized outbuildings. The level of fill that has occurred on site and the construction of the outbuilding above has resulted in a poor balance between the distribution of open space and building structures resulting in adverse visual amenity impacts when viewed from neighbouring properties.

Photo 1: View of outbuilding from rear yard of No. 16 McGowen Street.

Photo 2: View from the rear yard of No. 53 Austral Street showing the higher land level of the subject site (shown by darker brickwork), and an outbuilding at the rear of No. 16 McGowen Avenue located on lower land level which is generally the natural land level.

 

Visual privacy

 

16 McGowen Avenue

 

The fill to the site, namely that associated with the paved area results in adverse visual privacy impacts on the rear yard of the neighbouring property at No. 16 McGowen Avenue. Photo 3 below shows the increased ground levels have reduced the effective height of the north western side fence and its ability to provide a reasonable privacy buffer for the rear yard of No. 16 McGowen Avenue. The privacy impacts have to a limited extent been ameliorated by including a garden bed along the side of the paved area and it is noted that no submissions have been received from neighbouring properties. It is also noted that a higher side boundary fence may be able to be installed along this side boundary however this will have to be the subject of a separate application inclusive of the neighbour’s agreement under the Dividing Fences Act.

 

Photo 3: Shows the outbuilding and paved area within the site. Note the height of the fence alongside the neighbouring property at No. 16 McGowen Street.

 

53 Austral Street

 

The outbuilding structure provides its own level of privacy protection to this neighbours rear yard, however if it were to be removed then the level of fill along the rear boundary would be also problematic in relation to firstly the privacy impact and the requirement for an excessively high fence albeit lower than the height of the existing outbuilding structure.

 

Overall, in terms of visual balance, the retaining wall inclusive of the outbuilding on top does not exhibit a good visual balance between the distribution of open space and buildings structures on site due to the various impacts outlined above relating to visual amenity and privacy impacts.

 

·      To assist with stormwater infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

In seeking to address the landscaping objective above, the applicant contends the following:

 

-    Stormwater runoff from all roofed areas and ground surface runoff is drained via gravity and associated appropriate grated pits and drainage pipes to McGowen Avenue.

 

-    The site is solid rock and no deep soil permeable area exists.

 

In relation to the first statement, whilst it is acknowledged that the site is well connected to stormwater infrastructure it has however placed a greater reliance on infrastructure rather than allowing for more natural deep soil areas within a site to assist with infiltration and reduction of overland flow.

 

In relation to the assertion that the site is solid rock and that no deep soil permeable exists within the site it is not considered that the applicant has furnished the necessary documentation to justify this statement. The applicants own survey (dated 1998) shows that the sandstone outcrop falls short of the location of the outbuilding in the rear of the site which also identifies this area as grass. Also, Council’s mapping dated 2004 (see below) shows grassed areas within the subject sites rear yard.

2004 interactive mapping showing the grassed rear yard of No. 18 McGowen.

 

Notwithstanding the above, sandstone may well be located below the grassed areas shown in Councils map which somewhat reduces the capacity for stormwater infiltration and overland flow being minimised. However, the applicant has not furnished such details and therefore the assumption has to lie with the assessment that the fill and outbuilding within the site have resulted in unreasonably low levels of deep soil area in this rear part of the site. In this respect, the fill, outbuilding above and hard paved areas installed on site will have resulted in less stormwater infiltration and greater demand on infrastructure than that which would have occurred had the development not been constructed.

 

Outbuildings

 

The relevant objectives in Section 7.4 Outbuildings of the RDCP 2013 are:

 

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

 

The relevant controls in the RDCP for outbuildings are:

 

2.4m maximum external wall height

3.6m maximum overall height (note Gable ends are not counted as wall heights)

Position to optimise backyard space and must not be located within the required permeable surfaces.

Outbuildings may be constructed to the side and rear boundaries where:

The external walls are finished and do not require frequent maintenance;

There are no windows or openings facing the adjoining allotments; and

Adequate solar access to the adjoining dwellings is maintained.

 

The existing outbuilding exhibits the following non-compliances with the controls:

 

Ø It exceeds the maximum external wall height of between 2.6m facing the rear yard and 4m above the adjacent ground level along the rear boundary shared with No. 53 Austral Street

Ø It exceeds the maximum overall height by 400mm

Ø It is located over previous grassed area as indicated in the survey submitted with the application

 

The applicant indicates the following two points to support the retention of the retention of the outbuilding:

 

-    The existing outbuilding was constructed over an existing rear boundary retaining wall, constructed due to a sharp dip in the ground/rock level to the rear of the site (verified by survey). When considered in this context the outbuilding height has an effective height of only 3m above the existing retaining wall and the overall height is only 4m which is marginally higher than the 3.6m maximum overall height in the RDCP.

 

-    The overall height of the outbuilding does not adversely impact the residential or environmental amenity of the adjoining properties having regard to solar access and overshadowing, visual /acoustic privacy and view sharing

 

In relation to the first point, it is acknowledged that prior to the fill on site, that the site did exhibit a sharp dip or a localised low point at the rear and that some concession to building heights over localised low points is subject to a merit assessment against the objectives. The main assessment criteria against the objectives relates to whether the development provides reasonable levels of visual amenity, solar access, and privacy for the neighbouring dwellings. These are assessed as follows:

 

Visual amenity

 

The outbuilding as shown in photos 1 and 2 earlier has an excessive wall height and presents an obtrusive wall height when viewed from neighbouring properties with particular reference to the rear boundary of No. 53 Austral Street. However, it must be acknowledged that it is located along the rear most section of their rear yard and not the neighbour’s principle area of private open space and the view of this outbuilding is partially obstructed from their dwelling by their own outbuilding located further within their property.

 

Solar access and overshadowing of the neighbouring properties

 

The outbuilding whilst resulting in additional impacts does not result in non-compliance with the required 3hrs of solar access to the neighbour’s private open space or their north facing windows. However it is also important to consider that No. 53 Austral Street is largely underdeveloped and to therefore consider the overshadowing impact on the rear yard of No. 53 Austral Street if it was redeveloped to its full potential.

 

Having regard to the current RDCP controls for rear setbacks and the predominant rear building line of buildings along this side of Austral Street it is likely that redevelopment would locate the rear yard or POS closer to the rear boundary shared with the subject site. In turn, the scale of the outbuilding over the fill carried out in this part of the site would result in greater loss of solar access to their neighbours rear yard as well as greater visual bulk.

 

Overall, the outbuilding over the significant fill in this part of the site will result in significant overshadowing to this neighbour’s rear yard and it would present as an excessively scaled and massed structure in close proximity to this neighbour’s private open space area.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

 

As indicated by the applicant the outbuilding doesn’t have any window openings facing the neighbouring properties except for the openings facing its own rear yard which may provide a less than direct outlook across to the north western side neighbours dwelling. However, this outlook is a substantial distance away and the storage use of the outbuilding does not lend itself to significant privacy impact.

 

Overall, having regard to the key issues discussed above, it is not considered that the development achieves a good visual balance in relation to the distribution of open space and building structures within the rear yard relative to the neighbouring properties, the outbuilding results in added overshadowing impacts, the fill to the site results in added privacy impacts and the outbuilding will result in an excessive built form when viewed from neighbouring properties and thus adverse visual amenity impacts. Therefore the section 96 application seeking to delete condition 2b cannot not be supported.

 

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

 

It is acknowledged that discretion is able to be exercised by Council having general regard to the considerable length of time the outbuilding and fill has been on site, and that there have been no submissions received by Council. Nonetheless, it is not considered that the outbuilding and associated work in the rear yard are a good planning outcome. The outbuilding and associated fill and hard surface area results in a distorted visual balance when viewed in the context of the neighbouring properties, and the outbuilding has an excessive massing that results in additional visual amenity impacts when viewed from neighbouring properties.

 

Therefore, the concerns raised by Council Officers in the original planning report are still relevant, and it is considered that condition 2a and 2b shall be retained as originally determined.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/26/2015/A for deletion of conditions 2a and 2b, for the following reasons:

 

1.   Condition 2a is retained as Council cannot retrospectively issue development consent to works already carried out.

 

2.   Condition 2b is retained and approval is not granted for the use of the outbuilding and associated fill and hard surface areas within the rear yard of the site as they don’t comply with the relevant controls and objectives for the following Clauses of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013:

 

a.     Landscaping and Permeable Surfaces as set out in Clause 2.4 of the RDCP 2013. The siting of the outbuilding will detract from the visual balance in relation to the distribution of open space and building structures in the rear yard relative to neighbouring properties.

 

b.     Outbuildings as set out in Clause 7.4 of the RDCP 2013. The proposed outbuilding exceeds the maximum height and wall height controls resulting in excessive visual bulk which adversely affects the amenity of the adjoining properties; the outbuilding and associated driveway is located within the required permeable surface area on site.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP9/16

 

Subject:                  68 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick (DA/610/2015)

Folder No:               DA/610/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to existing building including construction of additional dwelling at basement level, alterations and additions to units 1 and 2 at ground and first floor level, demolition of existing carport fronting Queen Street, construction of new double garage with home office, bathroom and bar at first floor, landscaping and associated works (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr. J. Spiteri

Owner:                    Tagon Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=1e3f2f9e-63e3-4052-a97d-9f2f516f038d&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination as the proposed floor space ratio exceeds the standard under Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%. 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to existing building including construction of additional dwelling at basement level, alterations and additions to units 1 and 2 at ground and first floor level, demolition of existing carport fronting Queen Street, construction of new double garage with home office, bathroom and bar at first floor, landscaping and associated works (variation to floor space ratio control).

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as 68 Coogee Bay Road and legally described as Lot B DP 436028. The subject site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a total area of 278.7sqm, frontage width along Coogee Bay Road of 7.165m and a side boundary depth of 38.785m.

 

The subject site is characterised by a substantial fall by approximately 7.10 metres from front (south) to the rear (north) of the subject site. The existing development comprises of an existing dual occupancy development comprising of two units that have not been strata subdivided with an existing single storey double garage structure located at the rear fronting Queen Street. Neighbouring to the north is an existing rear lane (Queen Street), to the south is an existing roadway (Coogee Bay Road) and to the east and west is an existing three storey residential flat building with ancillary garage facilities located at the rear of the premises. The immediate locality consists of medium density residential development and is located in close proximity to the intersection of Coogee Bay Road/Dudley Street and Coogee Bay Road/Carrington Road.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2013

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

1.01:1

No*

Height of Building (Maximum)

12 metres

9.1 metres

Yes

*See exceptions to development standards below.


 

 

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

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum floor space ratio development standard contained in clause 4.4(2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012. The variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Proposed gross floor area

281.18sqm (1.01:1)

Maximum permissible gross floor area

250.83sqm (0.9:1)

FSR exceeding LEP control

30.35sqm (11%)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

The applicant’s written justifications in the following key arguments for the departure from the standard are as below:

 

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

 

1.       Consistency with the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio standard in the LEP objectives:

 

2.       The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment:

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

 

•         The development will establish a suitable scale to the streetscape and the building design appropriately responds to the site characteristics and the adjoining developments. The proposal will retain the appearance of a single storey dwelling from the existing streetscape and the additional unit is located at the basement level which is neither visible from the primary street frontage along Coogee Bay Road or the secondary street frontage at the rear along Queen Street.

 

·             The proposal responds to the topography of the site which falls away significantly by approximately 7 metres along the building depth from the south to the north of the subject site.

 

·             The additional gross floor area is located at the rear of the building at the ground, lower ground and basement floor levels. The additional FSR will generally remain compliant with the suite of building envelope controls and objectives in that the side setback will provide ample building separation to the eastern and western neighbours, the rear setback will maintain the predominant rear setback alignment as the adjoining buildings and the distribution of landscaping across the site is consistent with that of the neighbouring buildings.   

 

·             The additional building volume is generally consistent with the immediately adjoining buildings on similarly sited and sized allotments including no. 66 Coogee Bay Road with an approved FSR of 1.14:1 (DA/1101/2010) and no. 70 Coogee Bay Road with an approved FSR of approximately 1:1 (DA/866/2005). 

 

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

 

Assessment:

The dwelling will appear as a single storey development and does not involve modifications to the front roof form or an increase to the building height that may contribute to additional visual bulk from the primary street alignment along Coogee Bay Road. Along the side elevations the development seeks to simply extend the building envelope to the north and the articulation is acceptable given the development will generally be in keeping with the existing built form. The new garage at the rear of the premises fronting Queen Street is appropriately articulated with the new home office/retreat is set in from the building alignment at the lower ground floor garage. The design scheme also provides north-facing window openings to allow for direct solar access and a south-facing window which provides a cross-through layout to the rear ancillary building.  

 

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

 

Assessment:

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

 

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

 

Assessment:

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

 

·      The development will not result in any adverse visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape given the existing building will maintain the appearance of a single storey dwelling and does not involve any changes to the front façade or the existing roof form.

 

·      The subject site is orientated in a north/south aspect and the development will continue to comply with the required three hours of direct solar access between the hours of 8am to 4pm, 21 June as per the RDCP2013. To the west, the new addition will not cast any new shadowing to the north-facing private open space or window openings at no. 70 Coogee Street given the approved development (DA/1101/2010) extends beyond the proposed rear building alignment of the subject premises. Whilst there is expected to be some shadowing to the east facing windows between the hours of 8am – 12pm it is difficult to provide for a compliant level of solar access given the development will overshadow itself between 12pm – 4pm. To the east, the north-facing windows and private open space will maintain more than the required three hours of direct solar access between the hours of 8am – 12pm. The development will comply with the controls and objectives for solar access and overshadowing. 

 

·      The proposal will maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy to the neighbouring buildings. The new rear facing balconies results in mutual overlooking impacts that are generally shared between the immediately adjoining neighbours given the narrow allotment widths and the significant sloping nature of the site. The extent of overlooking impacts are acceptable given they are mostly to the rear communal open space areas and does not adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining properties. Notwithstanding this, the proposal includes the installation of a new 1.8 metre privacy screen along the eastern edge of the balcony to minimise any direct privacy impacts to the neighbouring premises. The proposal will provide a reasonable level of visual privacy to the neighbouring buildings.

 

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

 

2.     Consistency with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone 

 

        Objectives of zone:

 

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

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

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

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

·       To protect the amenity of residents.

·       To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment:

The residential flat building is a permissible form of development in accordance with the land use zoning maps as per the RLEP2012. The design scheme will retain its single storey scale from Coogee Bay Road and does not contribute to any additional visual bulk and scale impacts from the streetscape. The non-compliance of approximately 30.35sqm above the maximum permissible floor area is located mostly at the rear of the subject premises and the proposed building envelope is consistent with the size and scale of the adjoining buildings which are also non-compliant with the maximum floor space area. The breach to the maximum permissible floor space ratio does not give rise to any adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and is acceptable in providing a reasonable level of amenity with regards to visual privacy, overshadowing and views. The development encourages housing affordability and provides for the housing demand within the local community by providing an additional one bedroom unit at the basement level.

 

3.     Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment:

The proposed development is consistent with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 and a BASIX certificate has been included as part of this development application.

 

4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment: The additional floor area does not form a detracting feature compromising the streetscape character and the development will continue to comply with the building envelope controls with regards to appropriate setbacks, building height and areas to provide adequate landscaping, where possible. As prescribed above, the variation to the floor space ratio development standards will not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings or within the streetscape and demonstrate a compliant development in terms of solar access, visual privacy and views.

 

5.       There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

The following assessment demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the FSR variation:

 

·      The development will maintain the appearance of a single storey dwelling from Coogee Bay Road and the new additions will not be visible from the existing streetscape given the works are located behind the main hipped roof form.

 

·      The increase to the floor space ratio to 1.01:1 is acceptable given the bulk and scale is sympathetic to other similarly sited and sized buildings in particular the immediately adjoining dwellings at nos. 66 and 70 Coogee Bay Road that consist of a similar FSR at 1.14:1 and 1.02:1. The additional FSR provides an acceptable building envelope given the development will maintain the predominant rear building alignment to the adjoining neighbours; the new addition provides an acceptable side setback with ample building separation to the adjoining neighbour and the new garage with home office/retreat above is compatible with other ancillary structures fronting Queen Street in terms of building height and scale.

 

·      The proposal involves minor alterations and additions that will generally be in keeping with the overall design scheme and form of the existing building. The new addition at the rear will extend the existing skillion roof form and will minimise its visual appearance from the neighbouring buildings.

 

·      The new additions at the rear of the building will comply with the maximum building height and external wall height requirements and will be imperceptible from the existing streetscape.

 

·      The non-compliance of the 30sqm is imperceptible in the overall design scheme of the development and will not result in any adverse environmental impacts to the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings including overshadowing, visual privacy and view sharing from the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

6.       The Variation is within the Public Interest

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. However, strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the low density housing forms envisaged under the LEP for the locality.

 

·      Randwick Development Control Plan 2012

 

Part B7 - Vehicular Parking Rates

Clause 3.2: Vehicle Parking Rates within the RDCP2013 prescribes a minimum of 1.2 parking spaces be provided per two bedroom unit, 1 parking space be provided per one bedroom unit and 1 visitor space per four units. The proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing building with three apartments including (2 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 1 bedroom apartment) which will generate a parking demand of 4 parking spaces (when rounded to the nearest whole figure). The proposal provides for two off-street parking spaces and does not comply with Council’s controls for vehicular parking rates. However, the departure from the Council controls is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      Council’s development engineer has reviewed the development application and advised that the proposed parking shortfall of one space is acceptable given the sites close proximity to public transport and the Coogee Town Centre. Council’s development engineer acknowledges that the subject site is located within 300m of a bus stop with frequent bus services all within the Sydney Metropolitan Area. 

·      The subject site is located within an ‘accessible area’ as defined by the State Environmental Planning Policy: Affordable Rental Housing 2009 given it is located within 400m of a bus stop with at least one bus leaving between 6.00 and 21.00 each day from Monday to Friday and 8.00 and 18.00 on each Saturday and Sunday.

·      The subject site immediately adjoins two street frontages including Coogee Bay Road (south) and Queen Street (north) with long and short-term off-street parking options available on both roadways.

·      A condition of consent has been included that a bicycle rack be installed within the subject premises to accommodate for three bicycle spaces with one provided for each unit. The condition requires an additional number of bicycle spaces above a compliant development in order to address the shortfall of hardstand parking spaces. This is aligned with Council’s policies that encourage environmental sustainable transport opportunities in particular in localities where public transport infrastructure is frequented and facilities and services are available to meet the day-to-day needs of the residents. 

 

In considering the above, the shortfall in the number of off-street parking spaces will comply with the vehicular parking rates requirements as per the RDCP2013.

 

Part C2 – Medium Density Residential

 

Landscaped Open Space and Deep Soil Area

The Council controls require a minimum of 50% of the subject site area be provided as landscaped area and a minimum of 25% of the site area should be provided as deep soil areas that are suitably dimensioned to accommodate the growth of significant trees and planting. The proposal does not comply with either requirement with 40% and 14% of the site area provided as landscaped open space and deep soil areas, respectively. The non-compliance to the Council controls is acceptable given the development will generally comply with the objectives for landscaped open space and deep soil areas. The departure from the Council controls for soft landscaping will comply with the objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The landscaped area is equally distributed throughout the site and mirrors the built and unbuilt upon areas of the neighbouring buildings at no. 66 and 70 Coogee Bay Road.

·      The subject site is physically constrained in providing a compliant area of landscaped open space and deep soil areas given the nominal site width and the area at less than 300sqm. It should be noted that any reasonably sized building envelope that is consistent with the adjoining buildings will result in a reduce area for landscaped open space and deep soil.

·      The soft landscaped area provided within the middle of the site is immediately adjacent to the similarly sited and dimensioned permeable landscaped areas to the neighbouring premises and maintains the strip of soft landscaped area between the adjoining buildings at nos. 64-72 Coogee Bay Road.

·      The central landscaped area whilst nominal in size to accommodate for outdoor recreational activities is acceptable given the development provides for appropriately sized and dimensioned private open spaces in the form of balconies and outdoor courtyards to the accommodate the recreational demands within the premises. 

·      The soft landscaping is appropriately provided at the low point of the site and will reduce the amount of stormwater run-off that falls from the Coogee Bay Road frontage (high point) to Queen Street frontage (low point).

·      A condition of consent has been included that the proposed courtyard paving area shall be replaced with a permeable soft landscaped area to maximize the amount of deep soil areas provided to the subject site.

 

In considering the above, the variation from the soft landscaping and deep soil areas are acceptable for the site.

 

Floor to Ceiling Heights

 

The RDCP2013 requires a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres for all habitable rooms as per Clause 4.4: External Wall height and Ceiling Height. The unit at the basement level and the home office/retreat located on top of the double garage has a floor to ceiling height of 2.4 metres and the new ground floor level addition to the western end of the building comprises of a floor to ceiling height which falls between 2.7 metres to 2.4 metres given the sloping nature of the roof form. The above areas do not comply with minimum floor to ceiling height as per the controls of the RDCP2013.

 

A suitable condition of consent has been included that a 2.7 metre floor to ceiling height be provided to the all habitable rooms to the ground floor level unit and the home office/retreat located above the double garage.

 

With regards to the basement level unit there is greater difficulty imposing such a condition given the works will extend below the existing footings of the building. Nevertheless, the departure from the Council controls is acceptable in considering the merits of the application. The habitable rooms at the basement level generally comply with Part 4D: Apartment Size and layouts of the Apartment Design Guidelines in that the bedroom and the living area substantially exceed the minimum depth requirements of 3 metres and 3.6 metres, respectively with a bedroom depth of 5.7 metres and living room depth of 7.1 metres. Notwithstanding this, the basement level unit also enjoys a northern aspect which will receive ample direct solar access compliant with the minimum of three hours of direct solar access between the hours of 8am – 4pm, 21 June and access to the detached home office/retreat area at the rear which provides a space that achieves the minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres above the finished floor level. In considering the above, the variation to the floor to ceiling height requirements for the basement level unit is acceptable.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The submitted Clause 4.6: Exceptions to the Development Standards is acceptable in that the development will remain consistent with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone, comply with the objectives of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios and remains within the public interest. The additional gross floor area will be imperceptible from the streetscape, the configuration of the units and the rear ancillary garage and home/retreat above will be compatible with the immediately adjoining buildings. The shortfall in the number of parking spaces is also acceptable given the site is well serviced with well serviced public transport infrastructure and suitable conditions of consent have been included to provide additional alternatives of more environmentally friendly forms of transport. 

 

The proposal is acceptable in complying with Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impacts to the neighbouring developments.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/610/2015 for alterations and additions to existing building including construction of additional dwelling at basement level, alterations and additions to units 1 and 2 at ground and first floor level, demolition of existing carport fronting Queen Street, construction of new double garage with home office, bathroom and bar at first floor, landscaping and associated works (variation to floor space ratio control) at No. 68 Coogee Bay 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.     The privacy screening at the ground and lower ground floor levels on the eastern edge of the balcony shall have a height of 1.6 metres as measured from the finished floor level 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.

 

b.     All habitable rooms to the ground floor unit and the home office/retreat above the rear double garage must have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres above the finished floor level.  

 

c.      The new fence on the northern and western edge of the courtyard shall be a maximum height of 1.6 metres from the finished floor level of the courtyard area.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 68 Coogee Bay Road, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP10/16

 

Subject:                  325-327 Arden Street, Coogee (DA/695/2015)

Folder No:               DA/695/2015

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of the existing structures, consolidation of lots, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building in two building forms containing 17 dwellings, basement car parking for 29 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works (variation to floor space ratio and height controls).

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Pinnacle Developments Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Effie Holdings Properties Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination based on a cost of works exceeding $2 million and the proposal involves a request for an exception to the floor space ratio development standard by greater than 10%.

 

1.     Proposal

 

The application as amended on 17th February 2016 is for the demolition of all existing structures on site, consolidation of two lots, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building in two building forms containing 17 dwellings, basement car parking for 29 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works. The application is also the subject of a deemed refusal appeal to the Land & Environment Court.

 

It should be noted that the proposal was subject to a pre-lodgment meeting (PL/38/2015) and advice was provided on the 19th August 2015.

 

Figure 1: Perspective of proposal (Arden Street)

 

A breakdown of the proposal is as follows:

 

Basement

·      Car parking provided for 29 vehicles;

·      Bicycle parking;

·      Motorbike parking;

·      Utilities room, including: pump room, mechanical plant and electrical room;

·      Waste storage; and

·      Storage cages;

 

Ground Floor

·      Two built forms (one facing Arden Street and one facing Oberon Street);

·      Arden Street Building:

4 x 2 bedroom apartments (including two accessibility rooms)

·      Oberon Street Building:

1 x 3 bedroom apartment.

·      Communal private open space located to the north-eastern corner of the site.

First Floor

·      Two built forms (one facing Arden Street and one facing Oberon Street);

·      Arden Street Building:

4 x 2 bedroom apartments (including two accessibility rooms)

·      Oberon Street Building:

1 x 3 bedroom apartment.

 

Second Floor

·      Two built forms (one facing Arden Street and one facing Oberon Street);

·      Arden Street Building:

4 x 2 bedroom apartments

·      Oberon Street Building:

1 x 3 bedroom apartment.

 

Third Floor

·      One built form facing Arden Street:

2 x 3 bedroom apartments

 

2.     History

 

·      DA/146/1984: Proposal to erect a residential flat building in two built forms, with a three storey built form fronting Arden Street and a two storey built form fronting Oberon Street with semi-basement parking was refused by council on the 28th August 1984.

·      PL/38/2015: A Pre- lodgment for the demolition of all structures, consolidation of lots, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building in 2 building forms with basement car parking. Advice was provided by Council on the 19th August 2015.

 

3.     Site

 

The proposal seeks to amalgamate two sites 325 Arden Street and 327 Arden Street, 325 Arden Street is a regular shape allotment (rectangular in shape), whilst 327 Arden Street is an ‘L’ Shaped allotment fronting both Arden Street and Oberon Street.

Figure 2: Subject sites to be amalgamated

The site is located on the eastern side of Arden Street and the northern side of Oberon Street. The land has a frontage of 23.745m to Arden Street and 15.47m to Oberon Street; a total site area of 1555m² and the site is slopes steeply to the north-eastern corner of the site, as well as sloping steeply down Arden Street to the north. The site is landlocked to the north and east.

 

325 Arden Street is currently occupied by a two storey residential flat building containing 4 units; 327 Arden Street is occupied by a single storey dwelling house. At the rear of 327 Oberon Street is a tennis court which occupies the Oberon Street frontage.

 

Figure 3: Arden Street Frontage (highlighted green)

 

Figure 4: Oberon Street Frontage (Tennis Court)

 

The locality is occupied by a mixture of housing options, comprising of dwelling houses, semi-detached dwellings and multi-unit developments. The southern side of Oberon Street consists of several semi-detached dwellings and dwelling houses, the eastern and western sides of Arden Street as well as the northern side of Oberon Street are occupied by residential flat buildings.

 

4.     Exception to Development Standard

 

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

 

The proposal contravenes both the Floor space ratio development standard and the building height development standard of Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.4, contained within the RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standards pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variations are addressed as follows:

 

Maximum Building Height Control

Clause 4.3(2) states that the maximum height of buildings on the subject site is 12m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.3 (2)

Height of buildings

12m

12.94m

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

7.8%

 

Floor Space Ratio Control

Clause 4.4(2) states that the maximum Floor Space Ratio on the subject site is 0.9:1.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.4 (2)

F.S.R

0.9:1

(1399.5m)

1:1

(1558.62m)

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

11.4%

(159.12m)

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

It is considered that the proposed variations from both the maximum floor space ratio and the maximum building height standards are not appropriate in this instance. The submitted Clause 4.6 variation is not well founded for the following reasons:

 

·      The 940mm non-compliance with regards to the maximum building height control is being justified by the applicant under Clause 5.6 of the RLEP 2012, which relates to architectural roof features being allowed to exceed the height limits set out by Clause 4.3. The Design Review Panel raised concerns surrounding the original roof form in that it introduces dominant new forms into a streetscape that already lacked architectural harmony and that the roof form resulted in avoidable exceedances of the height line that also increased the apparent bulk of the buildings.

Amended plans changing the roof form to an almost flat roof design were received by council on the 17/2/2015. It is considered that the amended roof design does not meet the relevant objectives of Clause 5.6 of the RLEP 2012, in that the roof form is not considered a decorative element and still results in a dominating element within the built form when viewed from Arden Street and the neighbouring properties.

The proposal does not meet the requirements of Clause 5.6 of the RLEP 2012 relating to Architectural roof features.

Figure 5: Arden Street Frontage

 

·      The non-compliant portion of the development with respect to maximum building height is on the northern elevation of the Arden Street building, the development does not suitably respond to the significant fall in topography to the north along Arden Street and as such results in intrusive size and scale when viewed from the adjoining properties to the north and when looking south along Arden Street.

 

·      The RLEP 2012 height standard is read in conjunction with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 (Part C2 – Medium Density Residential), External wall height control, which allows for a maximum external wall height on site of 10.5m.

 

The proposal exceeds the RDCP external wall height control by 390mm on the southern elevation and 2.1m on the northern elevation of the Arden Street Building. The combination of breaches in both these controls results in significant adverse impacts on both the streetscape character when viewed within the visual catchment of the site and the amenity of the adjoining properties with regards to the apparent bulk and view sharing (see view sharing assessment in key issues section of report). 

 

·      The additional height results in a building that will have a size and scale that is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area. The combined effect of complying with both the maximum height and external wall height control would provide for a building that is manifestly smaller than that proposed.

 

·      The proposal seeks to vary the maximum allowable floor space ratio on site by 11.4% (159.12m²); the non-compliance with the development standard is considered to be excessive and results in a visually dominant building when viewed from both Arden Street and Oberon Street and also from the adjoining properties.

 

·      The proposed non-compliance with the floor space ratio results in significant adverse impacts on the view sharing opportunities for adjoining properties. A compliant design would provide better view sharing opportunities within the area (see key issues section for view sharing analysis).

 

·      The non-compliances with a number of the building envelope requirements particularly floor space ratio will adversely affect the foreshore scenic protection area in which the site is located.

 

·      The Arden street building will result in significant privacy impacts on the adjoining enclosed terraces and associated living areas of No.329 Arden Street. No privacy measures have been implemented on any of the windows on the southern elevation of the Arden Street building; the proposal does not meet the relevant controls in the RLEP 2012 or the Apartment Design Guide with regards to visual privacy.

 

·      The combination of non-compliance with both the building height and floor space ratio standards outlined in the RLEP 2012 compounds the adverse impacts and results in a development which will appear as visually bulky and dominating within its surrounds and is not compatible with the desired future character of the locality. The non-compliance with the aforementioned standards adversely impacts the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk, privacy impacts and view sharing impacts.

 

·      The non-compliant side setbacks of the Arden Street built form combined with the non-compliant floor space ratio for the site represent an enlarged building footprint and an overdevelopment of the site. The combination of breaches in both these controls results in an intrusive size and scale, adversely affecting the amenity of the adjoining properties and the character of the streetscape.

 

The applicant’s written request for an exception to the relevant standards has not successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standards in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

The proposal has not been designed to achieve the planning objectives for the locality and does not accord with the desired future scale and character of development whilst minimising potential adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

 

The applicant’s written request has not successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards.

 

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

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

 

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

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

·      To enable other land uses that 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.

 

The proposed development does not recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form, nor does it respond to the desired future character of the area as anticipated by Councils’ suite of built form controls. The proposed development will result in adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding residents. Whilst, the scheme provides a highly articulated development, its scale, bulk and massing is inappropriate having regard to the built form controls of the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013.

 

The proposed development is not considered to be in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for floor space ratio within clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012 and heights of buildings within clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical floor space ratio control and numerical building height standard will be detrimental to the orderly development of the site and there is public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed variations from the development standards do not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. Nonetheless, the strict adherence to the numerical standards will be necessary in this case, to ensure the desired future character and density of the locality is achieved and so that development does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas.

 


 

5.     Submissions

 

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

 

·      13/1A Neptune Street, Coogee

·      6/329 Arden Street, Coogee

·      323 Arden Street, Coogee

·      9/329 Arden Street, Coogee

·      241 Oberon Street, Coogee

·      5/202 Beach Street, Coogee

·      6/336 Arden Street, Coogee

·      5/336 Arden Street, Coogee

·      2/329 Arden Street Coogee

·      5/329 Arden Street, Coogee

·      4/329 Arden Street, Coogee

·      236 Oberon Street, Coogee

·      238 Oberon Street, Coogee

·      234 Oberon Street, Coogee

·      240 Oberon Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised in the above objections are as follows:

 

·      Objections on the grounds of view loss/view sharing have been raised by several properties (9/329 Arden Street, 2/329 Arden Street, 5/329 Arden Street, 6/329 Arden Street, 5/336 Arden Street, 6/336 Arden Street, 236 Oberon Street, 238 Oberon Street, 240 Oberon Street):

 

Planners Comment

A detailed view sharing assessment has been carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Courts established Planning Principle in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140. See key issues discussion for view sharing analysis.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the RLEP 2012 control for maximum permissible F.S.R on site:

 

Planners Comment

It is acknowledged that the proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible F.S.R on site of 0.9:1; the proposal seeks a variation of 11.4%, a proposed F.S.R of 1:1. See discussion 4 -Exception to Development Standard for assessment against Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the RLEP 2012 control for maximum building height permissible on site:

 

Planners Comment

It is acknowledged that the proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible building height on site of 12m; the proposal seeks a variation of 7.8%, a proposed maximum building height of 12.94m on the Arden Street frontage. See discussion 4 -Exception to Development Standard for assessment against Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the RDCP 2013 maximum external wall height control:

 


 

Planners Comment

It is acknowledged that the proposal exceeds numerical control of 10.5m for maximum external wall height. The non-compliance with the external wall height increase the perceivable bulk and visual massing of the development, in particular on the Arden Street Frontage adversely affecting the streetscape character and amenity of the adjoining properties, it is considered that the proposal does not meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013. See key issues section for further discussion.

 

·      Concerns raised regarding the roof form not complying with the height controls outlined in the RLEP 2012:

 

Planners Comment

It is considered that the roof form which results in the non-compliance with the maximum building height control outlined in the RLEP 2012 is a dominating and bulky element within the visual catchment along Arden Street and is an avoidable non-compliance. The roof form will result in unacceptable visual amenity impacts when viewed along Arden Street.

 

·      Concerns raised regarding damage to adjoining/surrounding properties during excavation and construction:

 

Planners Comment

Standard conditions relating to support for adjoining land and the requirement for a dilapidation report could be recommended to address potential impacts on the adjoining properties, however the proposal is being recommended for refusal and no conditions are required.

 

·      Queries relating to the dividing fence between adjoining properties as no details have been provided:

 

Planners Comment

The proposal does not include any details with regards to the dividing fences, however this is something which can covered under the Dividing fences Act 1991. Conditions could be recommended to ensure that only fences indicated on the submitted plans are constructed (unless they fall under the exempt development codes), however no conditions are required as the proposal is being recommended for refusal.

 

·      Objection to potential overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties:

 

Planners Comment

The amended proposal will result in some additional overshadowing impacts on the surrounding properties on Arden Street, Beach Street and Oberon Street. Notwithstanding this the proposal will comply with the Apartment Design Guide solar access requirements in that living areas of neighbouring dwellings will receive a minimum of 2 hours access to direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 21 June and 3 hours direct sunlight to areas of private open space.

 

The proposal meets the relevant controls and objectives with regards to solar access outlined in the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·      Visual Privacy concerns have been raised by residents on Beach Street, Arden Street and Oberon Street:

 

Planners Comment

It is acknowledged that the proposal may result in visual privacy impacts on the adjoining properties, see discussion in key issues section of this report.

 

·      Concerns regarding potential acoustic impacts of plant equipment, air-conditioners etc.

 

Planners Comment

All mechanical plant equipment has been located within the basement are of the development. Standard noise conditions could be recommended to address potential noise impacts on the adjoining properties, however the proposal is being recommended for refusal.

 

·      Objection to the increased parking demand and loss of on street parking:

 

Planners Comment

The proposal as amended complies with and exceeds the relevant parking rate requirements outlined under part B7 of the RDCP 2013. The proposal will not result in a parking shortfall on site.

 

·      Objection to the proposal as it is out of scale, out of character and an overdevelopment of the site

 

Planners Comment

It is considered that the proposal is not of a scale that is compatible with the character of the surrounding streetscape. It is considered that the proposal does not comply with the relevant objectives of the R3 medium density zone, the proposal will result in adverse impacts on the amenity of surrounding residents and does not recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form nor does it contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

The proposal is non-compliant with several RDCP 2013 controls (external wall height, view sharing and setbacks) as well as RLEP 2012 controls (F.S.R and Building Height), all of which assist in controlling the maximum building envelope of a development. It is considered that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site resulting in adverse impacts on the streetscape, foreshore scenic protection area and surrounding residents, and as such has been recommended for refusal.

 

6.     Key Issues

 

6.1   View Sharing

 

Through the notification of the application, 10 objections were received in relation to view loss, as illustrated in figure 6 below. The sites with view loss concerns are:

·      6/329 Arden Street, Coogee

·      9/329 Arden Street, Coogee

·      2/329 Arden Street Coogee

·      5/329 Arden Street, Coogee

·      4/329 Arden Street, Coogee

·      6/336 Arden Street, Coogee

·      5/336 Arden Street, Coogee

·      236 Oberon Street, Coogee

·      238 Oberon Street, Coogee

·      240 Oberon Street, Coogee

 

The Randwick DCP 2013 Part C2 outlines key objectives and controls relating to view sharing for development proposals, this section of the DCP seek to ensure developments are sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain. This Section of the DCP is considered in conjunction with the below planning principle. (See conclusion below).

 

To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, the Land and Environment Court has established a Planning Principle in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140. This provides a four stage method of assessing view loss. The first step relates to the assessment of the view itself:

 

1. Quality of Views:

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. 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, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

2. From what part of the property the views are obtained?

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.

 

3. An assessment of the extent of the impact?

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

 

4. An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact?

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 skillful 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.

 

Officer Comment:

 

Principles 1 Assess views to be affected

 

The subject proposal will affect views from several properties within the immediate vicinity:

There were 5 view loss objections received from units within the building at No. 329 Arden Street, site inspections were carried out and photos were taken .Apartments in 329 Arden Street currently enjoy ocean and horizon views, with some apartments enjoying iconic views to Wedding Cake Island, Coogee beach and Clovelly headland (Burrows Park). The views are obtained over the rear private open space and carpark portion of 325 and 327 Arden Street and over a tennis court which fronts Oberon Street which is attached to 327 Arden Street. The views are also obtained over existing residential flat buildings located to the east and north-east of the subject site.

Figure 6: Viewing corridor from No. 329 Arden Street

 

There were 2 view loss objections received from units within the building at No. 336 Arden Street, site inspections were carried out and photos were taken. Apartments in 336 Arden Street currently enjoy ocean and horizon views, with iconic views of Wedding Cake Island, the views are obtained over the top of 325 and 327 Arden Street. There are also views of Clovelly headland (Burrows Park) obtained over the existing residential flat buildings located to the north of the subject site which will remain uninterrupted.

Figure 7: Blue= Ocean Views obtained, Red = Ocean views to be affected

 

There were 3 view loss objections received from dwellings and semi-detached dwellings on the southern side of Oberon Street, site inspections were carried out and photos were taken. Properties along Oberon Street (No. 236 to 240) currently enjoy ocean and horizon views, with obscured views of Coogee beach and Clovelly headland (Burrows Park). The views are obtained over a tennis court which fronts Oberon Street which is attached to 327 Arden Street.

Figure 8: Views from Oberon Street Affected

 

Principle 2 and Principle 3: From what part of the property are the views obtained and assess the extent of the impact.

 

·      2/329 Arden Street, Coogee

 

Views are obtained over the subject site from the southern (side) neighbours at 2/329 Arden Street (1st Floor apartment) over the northern side boundary and eastern rear boundary. Views that are obtained are partially obscured ocean and horizon views. These views are obtained from the enclosed balcony/associated living area and bedroom. The views are obtained in a north-easterly direction between existing residential flat buildings over the existing single storey aged dwelling. They are obtained from a sitting and standing position. The proposed residential flat building (Arden Street Built Form) would result in severe view loss implications on the apartment, with views to the north east being substantially impacted/lost as a result of the proposed development. There would be some minor obscured/oblique views to the east retained through the proposed viewing corridor obtained over the communal open space.

 

The view loss to this apartment can be quantified as severe.

Figure 9: View from bedroom- Standing - 2/329 Arden Street

Figure 10: View from Enclosed balcony/living area- Standing - 2/329 Arden Street

Figure 11: Views which will be affected (red) (standing) - 2/329 Arden Street

 

·      4/329 Arden Street, Coogee

Views are obtained over the subject site from the southern (side) neighbours at 4/329 Arden Street (2nd Floor apartment) over the northern side boundary and eastern rear boundary. These views are obtained from the enclosed balcony/associated living area through a viewing corridor in a north-easterly direction. Views are unobscured ocean and horizon views, as well as a view of Wedding Cake Island.

There are also district views to the north; however these will not be affected by the proposal.

The views obtained from the enclosed balcony and associated living area of Unit 4 (2nd floor level), would be severely impacted as a direct result of the proposed residential flat building (Arden Street Built Form). The majority of ocean and horizon views to the north east would be completely lost as a result of the proposed development. A small viewing corridor which includes views to Wedding Cake Island will however be retained over the proposed communal open space area.

 

The view loss to this apartment can be quantified as severe.

 

Figure 12: Views from the balcony which will be affected (standing) 4/329 Arden Street

 

·      5/329 Arden Street, Coogee

Views are obtained over the subject site from the southern (side) neighbours at 5/329 Arden Street (2nd Floor apartment) over the northern side boundary and eastern rear boundary. Views that are obtained are unobscured ocean and horizon views, with views of Wedding Cake Island achieved from the enclosed balcony/associated living area, kitchen and bedroom. The views are obtained in a north-easterly direction between existing residential flat buildings over the existing single storey aged dwelling and tennis court. They are obtained from a sitting and standing position from all locations.

The small amount of views obtained from the Bedroom and Kitchen will be almost completely lost, views from the enclosed balcony and associated living area which include Iconic Wedding Cake Island views will be severely affected. The southern portion of Wedding Cake Island will be partially obscured by the Oberon Street built form, with the Arden Street built form resulting in moderate ocean and horizon view loss to the north east. As with other units within 329 Arden Street, a small viewing corridor which includes ocean, horizon and partial Wedding Cake Island views will however be retained over the communal open space proposed.

 

The view loss to this apartment can be quantified as moderate to severe.

 

Figure 13: View from Kitchen- Standing - 5/329 Arden Street

Figure 14: View from Bedroom- Standing - 5/329 Arden Street

Figure 15: Views from the balcony which will be affected (standing) - 5/329 Arden Street

 


 

 

·      6/329 Arden Street, Coogee

Views are obtained over the subject site from the southern (side) neighbours at 6/329 Arden Street (3rd Floor apartment) over the northern side boundary and eastern rear boundary. Views obtained are ocean and horizon views, iconic views to Clovelly headland and Wedding Cake Island, as well as also distant views towards the city skyline with iconic views of the center point tower.

Ocean views obtained from the kitchen and bedroom on the eastern elevation are obtained in a north-easterly direction between existing residential flat buildings over the tennis court. They are obtained from both a sitting and standing position. These views will be almost completely lost as a result of the Oberon Street built form and the view loss can be quantified as severe

City Views are obtained from the enclosed balcony/associated living area in a north-westerly direction from both a standing and sitting position. They are obtained over the existing single level dwelling at 327 Arden Street and the existing residential flat building at 326-330 Arden Street and will be completely lost as a result of the proposed development.

Views to the north-east, which include ocean, horizon and Clovelly headland views obtained from the enclosed balcony and associated living area, will be retained through the proposed viewing corridor over the communal open space area. Iconic views of Wedding Cake Island obtained from the enclosed balcony and associated living area will be completely lost as a result of the Oberon Street built form.

 

The view loss to this apartment can be quantified as severe.

 

Figure 16: Views to be affected (left = balcony, right = kitchen) (standing) 6/329 Arden Street

Figure 17: View from Enclosed balcony/living area- Standing - 6/329 Arden Street

 

·      9/329 Arden Street, Coogee

Views are obtained over the subject site from the southern (side) neighbours at 9/329 Arden Street (3rd Floor apartment) over the northern side boundary and eastern rear boundary. Views obtained are ocean and horizon views, including iconic views to Clovelly headland and Wedding Cake Island. There are distant district views towards Clovelly and the city skyline in a northern and north-westerly direction with iconic views of center point tower.

Ocean views are obtained from the enclosed balcony/associated living area and study on the northern elevation, kitchen and bedroom, both on the eastern elevation. The views are obtained in a north-easterly direction between existing residential flat buildings over the tennis court. They are obtained from both a sitting and standing position.

City Views are obtained from the enclosed balcony/associated living area in a north-westerly direction from both a standing and sitting position. They are obtained over the existing single level dwelling at 327 Arden Street and the existing residential flat building at 326-330 Arden Street.

The proposal will result in a loss of the existing obscured views of Coogee Beach to the north and would result in a loss of ocean views to the east. The apartment would retain views to Clovelly Headland and Wedding Cake Island.

The view loss to this apartment can be quantified as minor to moderate.

 

Figure 18: View effected - Enclosed balcony/living area- Standing - 9/329 Arden Street,

Figure 19: View affected - Bedroom – Standing - 9/329 Arden Street,

Figure 20: View from Kitchen – Standing - 9/329 Arden Street

Figure 21: View to Coogee beach study – Standing - 9/329 Arden Street

 


 

 

336 Arden Street

 

·      5/336 Arden Street, Coogee

It should be noted that apartment 5 of 336 Arden Street will retain distant district views to the north and ocean views and distant views of Clovelly headland to the north-east.

Affected views are obtained between existing residential flat buildings at No. 329 Arden Street and 1a Neptune Street over the subject site from the western neighbours across Arden Street at 5/336 Arden Street (3rd / Top Floor apartment) over the eastern (front) boundary. Views that are obtained are partially obscured ocean and horizon views, with views of Wedding Cake Island achieved from the enclosed balcony. They are obtained from a sitting and standing position.

The proposed residential flat building (Arden Street built form) would result in a total loss of the existing partial Wedding Cake Island views as well as the associated ocean views to the east of the subject site.


The view loss to this apartment can be quantified as moderate to severe, given the iconic nature of views to Wedding Cake Island.

 

Figure 22: View from Enclosed balcony- Standing - 5/336 Arden Street

 

·      6/336 Arden Street, Coogee

It should be noted that apartment 6 of 336 Arden Street will retain distant district views to the north and ocean views, Coogee beach views and Clovelly headland views to the north-east.

Affected views are obtained over the subject site from the western neighbours across Arden Street at 6/336 Arden Street (3rd / Top Floor apartment) over the eastern (front) boundary. Views obtained are partially obscured ocean and horizon views, with unobscured views of Wedding Cake Island achieved from the dining area and two enclosed balconies.

Affected views are obtained in an easterly direction between existing residential flat buildings at No. 329 Arden Street and 1a Neptune Street over the existing single storey aged dwelling and existing two storey residential flat building on the subject site. They are obtained from a sitting and standing position.

The proposed residential flat building (Arden Street built form) would retain the horizon views from all vantage points, however it would result in a severe loss of Wedding Cake Island views (retaining a small southern portion) from the northern balcony as well as a severe loss of associated ocean views to the east from all vantage points.


The view loss to this apartment can be quantified as severe.

 

Figure 23: View from dining room – standing - 6/336 Arden Street

Figure 24: View from eastern enclosed- Standing - 6/336 Arden Street

Figure 25: View from northern enclosed balcony- Standing - 6/336 Arden Street

Oberon Street

 

·      236 and 238 Oberon Street, Coogee (semi-detached dwellings)

Views are obtained over the subject site which fronts Oberon Street from the southern neighbours at 236 & 238 Oberon Street (Ground floor semi-detached dwellings) over the northern front boundary. Views that are obtained are partially obscured ocean, horizon and Clovelly headland views.

These views are obtained from the front porches and associated front living areas. The views are obtained in a northern direction between existing residential flat buildings at No. 329 Arden Street and 241 Oberon Street over the existing tennis court. They are obtained from a sitting and standing position.

Figure 26: View from front porch – Standing - 236 Oberon Street

Figure 27: View to be affected - front porch – Standing - 238 Oberon Street

 

·      240 Oberon Street, Coogee

Views are obtained over the subject site which fronts Oberon Street from the southern neighbour at 240 Oberon Street (detached dwelling) over the northern front boundary. Views that are obtained from both ground and first floor, views from ground floor are heavily obscured Coogee beach and headland views, Views from first floor are obscured Coogee beach and headland interface views.

Views are obtained from the front porch at ground floor, and bedrooms at first floor level. The views are obtained in a northern direction between existing residential flat buildings at No. 329 Arden Street and 241 Oberon Street over the existing tennis court. They are obtained from a sitting and standing position. It should be noted that the subject site has DA approval for a two storey dwelling house (DA/92/2015), views from the approved development will be obtained from the ground floor front balcony and study and first floor master bedroom and associated front balcony.

Figure 28: View from front balcony ground floor - Standing

Figure 29: View from first floor bedrooms- Standing

Figure 30: View to be affected – First floor bedroom – Standing – 240 Oberon Street


Views obtained from 236, 238 and 240 Oberon Street will be totally lost as a result of the proposed development (Oberon Street built form)

The view loss to this apartment can be quantified as devastating.

 

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

 

An important question in terms of the reasonableness of the development is whether a development that complied with the relevant RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 controls should be insisted upon given the value and quality of the view, the extent of the view loss/retained and the context of the view.

 

·      Oberon Street, Coogee

Amended plans were submitted to Council on the 17th February 2016, these plans resulted in a reduction in height, size and scale of the Oberon Street built form. The amended proposal removed the top floor of the original development affectedly resulting in a development which appeared as a two and a half storey development from Oberon Street. The Oberon Street built form complies with the relevant controls relating to maximum building height, maximum external wall height and setbacks, however overall the development has a non-compliance with the floor space ratio control.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed view loss is devastating from the three properties which raised view loss concerns on the southern side of Oberon Street, the views that are achieved are over an undeveloped site which contains a tennis court. It should be noted that views obtained from the Oberon Street developments at ground and first floor level will be detrimentally impacted if not totally lost within any two storey development. It is considered that view loss from both the single level semi-detached dwellings and the two storey dwelling is unavoidable with any fully compliant development fronting Oberon Street.

 

·      329 Arden Street, Coogee

It is acknowledged that views are harder to retain from the lower level apartments (first floor level) within 329 Arden Street as these would be severely impacted from any two storey development.

 

It is considered that the view loss to all apartments within 329 Arden Street is severe and a better view sharing outcome could be achieved with a more skillful design that complies with the relevant RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 controls. Views from all apartments within the building will be affected, some more than others. The non-compliance with building height, wall height, floor space ratio and setback controls compound to result in a development which is excessive in bulk, size and scale.

 

The proposed development is not comparable in its size, scale and view sharing impact with a development that complied with the relevant built form controls. It is considered that the non-compliant elements of the development attribute to an unacceptable level of view loss for apartments within 329 Arden Street. A more skilful design which sought to comply with the relevant controls would assist in providing a more compatible development for the site with regards to view sharing.

 

·      336 Arden Street, Coogee

Iconic views to Wedding Cake Island will be severely affected and in some cases totally lost. Views of Clovelly headland and ocean to the north however will be retained and remain unaffected. When looking at the views that will be affected, it is considered the proposed development is unacceptable having regards to view sharing.

A development which complied with the relevant planning controls would have a reduced impact on view sharing for 336 Arden Street and result in a better planning outcome. The combined effect of a development which complied with the relevant built form controls would provide for a building that is manifestly smaller than that proposed, in addition such a development would be more appropriate for the site and result in a better view sharing outcome.

The proposal which exceeds the maximum floor space ratio allowable on site by 159.12m², exceeds the maximum building height by 940mm, exceeds the maximum external wall height by between 390mm and 2.1m and results in a non-compliant side setback of up to 1m under the required RDCP 2013 control is a significant overdevelopment of the site. The impact on views is considered to arise as a direct consequence of the non-compliance with the above mentioned controls.

 

Conclusion

Applicants view loss analysis

The applicant has commissioned a view sharing assessment undertaken by RLA (Richard Lamb & Associates) for Council to consider in the assessment of the application.

The view loss analysis submitted by the applicant concludes that after “taking each of the relevant matters into account, the development controls that apply, the visual analysis conducted by myself (RLA) and APA and the planning principles in Tenacity, the amended proposal is satisfactory with regards to view sharing and can be supported.”

Planners Comment and Conclusion

The view sharing assessment undertaken by RLA (Richard Lamb & Associates) in association with 3D photomontages modelled by APA (Alec Pappas Architects), have utilised photographs taken by Council Officers for the basis of their view sharing assessment. It is acknowledged in the view loss assessment that the photomontage analysis is not able to achieve a perfect fit between the 3D model and the photo. As such, it is preferable that the applicant erect height poles given the significant loss of iconic views that would arise from the proposal

 

Overall, the view impact to neighboring properties is considered to be severe. Ocean, horizon, city and iconic views (Wedding Cake Island) that are obtained from high use rooms; over front, rear and side boundaries will be severely affected or in some cases totally lost from a number of properties. The subject proposal does not comply with several controls contained within the RLEP 2012 and the RDCP 2013, the proposal does not comply with; Maximum building height control (RLEP 2012); F.S.R (RLEP 2012): Maximum External Wall Height - Arden Street built form (RDCP 2013); and side setbacks - Arden Street built form (RDCP 2013).

 

It is considered that the view loss caused by the proposal is unreasonable; a more appropriate response to the site constraints and incorporation of the key built form controls (floor space ratio, height/wall height and setbacks) would result in a better view sharing outcome for all properties. The proposed development would not be comparable in its size, scale and impact with a development that complied with the relevant built form controls outlined in the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013. The proposed view-loss is considered to be unacceptable and does not satisfy the Land and Environment Court’s planning principle for a view sharing development, nor does it satisfy Councils DCP controls.

 

6.2   Building Design

 

·      RDCP 2013 - External Wall Height

 

Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 states that where the site is subject to a 12m building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5m applies. The proposed development which is constructed in two built forms has the following maximum external wall heights:

 

Oberon Street (complies)

Eastern Elevation – 9.12m

Western Elevation – 10m

 

Arden Street (does not comply)

Northern Elevation – 12.6m

Southern Elevation – 10.89m

 

As seen previously the Oberon Street built form complies with the relevant controls with regards to maximum building height, however the Arden Street built form does not comply with the relevant controls. It is considered that the non-compliance of 390mm on the southern elevation and 2.1m on the northern elevation result in a built form which is not compatible with the streetscape and appears visually bulky and dominant when viewed within the visual catchment of Arden Street and neighbouring properties.

 

The non-compliant external wall height results in additional adverse impacts on the adjoining properties with regards to visual amenity and view sharing. The northern elevation contributes to significant massing of the development and results in an overbearing visual mass when viewed from the neighbouring developments. The non-compliant external wall height further exasperates view sharing issues which are discussed and section 6.1 of this report.

 

The non-compliance with the external wall height control in addition to the other built form non-compliance within the RDCP 2013 and RLEP 2012 results in a development which is not suitable for the streetscape and is considered an over development of the site, adversely affecting the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the character of the streetscape. The proposal does not meet the relevant objectives and controls outlined in the RDCP 2013.

 

·      RDCP 2013 - Setbacks

 

Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 states the following with regards to side setbacks:

 

The Oberon Street Frontage has a width of 15.47m and as such is required to have 2.5m side setbacks, the proposed Oberon Street built form complies with the minimum setback requirements outlined under the RDCP 2013.

 

The Arden Street Frontage has a width of 23.745m and as such is required to have 4m side setbacks, the proposed Arden Street built form provides side setbacks of between 3m–3.7m on the southern elevation and 3m-4m on the northern elevation and does not comply with the minimum setback requirements outlined under the RDCP 2013.

 

The non-compliant side setbacks of the Arden Street built form contribute to the adverse impacts on the adjoining properties with regards to visual privacy and view sharing. See discussion 6.1 for view sharing analysis and 6.4 for privacy impacts. In addition to the above the increased building width contributes to the excessive bulk and scale of the development when viewed within the streetscape.

 

It is considered that the proposed development does not meet the relevant objectives and controls with regards to side setbacks and as such adversely impacts the adjoining properties amenity and the streetscape character.

 

6.3   Privacy

 

The RDCP 2013 states that developments should be designed in a way to ensure a high level of amenity by providing for reasonable level of visual privacy for dwellings and neighbouring properties and 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 Oberon Street built form will not result in any adverse privacy impacts on the adjoining properties, to the east it is adjacent to several obscure glazed windows, its northern facing balconies are orientated north, and any overlooking from the northern balconies would be against the view corridor at oblique angle looking backwards.

 

There will however be some mutual overlooking in a north-westerly direction to the Arden Street built form on the same site. The Apartment Design Guide recommends that a visual separation of 12m would be considered acceptable in assisting with mitigating any potential privacy impacts between the two built forms.

 

The Arden Street built form has been designed with windows being either opposite bathroom windows or offset from bedroom windows, however the southern elevation at 2nd and 3rd floor level will have the potential to overlook the adjoining properties enclosed balconies and associated bedroom and living room windows. It should be noted that no privacy measures have been affixed to windows on the southern elevation of the Arden Street built form; as such the proposal will adversely affect the amenity and privacy of the adjoining properties.

 

The proposal does not meet the relevant objectives or controls outlined in the RDCP 2013 and will adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

6.4   Apartment Design Guide

 

·      3F-1: Privacy

 

The proposal does not meet the design criteria outlined in the Apartment Design Guide under objective 3F-1, which states:

 

Separation between windows and balconies is provided to ensure visual privacy is achieved. Minimum required separation distances from building to the side and rear boundaries are as follows:

 

Building Height

Habitable rooms and balconies

Non-habitable rooms

Up to 12m (4 storeys)

6m

3m

Up to 25m (5-8 storeys)

9m

4.5m

Over 25m (9 storeys+)

12m

6m

 

Note: Separation distances between buildings on the same site should combine required building separation depending on the type of room.

 

The proposal does not meet the minimum separation distances on either built form; The Oberon Street built form will not result in any adverse privacy impacts as the windows are offset from the adjoining building or are orientated towards the views to the north.

 

The Arden Street built form will have the potential to overlook the adjoining enclosed balconies and windows to the southern development (No. 329 Arden Street), in addition the building separation between the two built forms does not meet the minimum numerical requirements and privacy impacts from the rear of both built forms may occur.

 

The proposal does not meet the relevant design criteria or objectives of 3F-1 of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·      4D: Apartment layout/size

 

The proposal does not meet the design criteria outlined in the Apartment Design Guide under objective 4D, which states:

 

Apartments are required to have the following minimum internal areas:

 

Apartment Type

Minimum Internal Area

Studio

35m2

1 bedroom

50m2

2 bedroom

70m2

3 bedroom

90m2

The minimum internal areas include only one bathroom. Additional bathrooms increase the minimum internal area by 5m² each.

 

The proposal includes several units which do not meet the numerical requirements outlined in the Apartment Design Guide. Units 1,2,5,6,9,10 are required to have an internal floor area of 75m² as they all have additional bathrooms, the proposed apartment areas of the abovementioned units are outlined below:

 

Unit 1: 70.55m2;

• Unit 2: 73.01m2;

• Unit 5: 73.70m2;

• Unit 6: 73.01m2;

• Unit 9: 73.70m2;

• Unit 10: 73.01m2.

 

The non-compliance which is a direct result of the addition of the second bathroom within each unit, result in units which are not as functional or useable as a space, as well as resulting in areas which are hard to furnish, particularly in the living and dining areas.

 

In addition to the above the master bedroom of Unit 13 does not meet the minimum area requirements outlined in the Apartment Design Guide, which requires master bedrooms have a minimum area of 10m².

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant objectives and design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide.

 

·      4G: Storage

The Apartment Design Guide states that in addition to storage in kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms, the following storage is provided:

Dwelling Type 

Storage Size Volume

Studio

4m3

1 bedroom

6m3

2 bedroom

8m3

3bedroom

10m3

Note: At least 50% of the required storage is to be located within the apartment

 

It should be noted that the proposal meets the minimum storage volume sizes; this is spread between storage units in the basement and within the apartment. However the proposal does not meet the requirement that at least 50% of storage is provided within the apartment which adversely affects the accessibility of storage space for the occupants of each unit.

 

The proposal does not comply with the relevant objectives and design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide.

 


 

6.6   Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

 

The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area identified in the RLEP 2012; the objectives of Clause 6.7 are as follows:

 

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

·     To protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore,

·     To protect significant public views to and from the coast,

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

 

The development scheme is not appropriate for the location; the development is considered to be excessive in size and scale and out of character within the streetscape; it will negatively contribute to its appearance within the coastal foreshore area. The non-compliances to a number of the building envelope requirements results in a structure that will dominate and detract from the foreshore scenic protection area in which the site is located.

 

·      6.7 RLEP 2012 - Clause 5.6 – Architectural Roof Features & RDCP 2013 - Roof Design

 

The subject proposal relies on Clause 5.6 to justify the non-compliance with Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings. The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

·      To allow minor architectural roof features of visual interest or that form an integral part of a building’s design to exceed height limits;

·      To ensure that architectural roof features are decorative elements and that the majority of the roof is contained within the maximum building height standard.

 

The DRP made several comments in relation to the original proposed roof form stating that  “the Panel remains unconvinced by the proposed roof profile” as it introduces dominant new forms into the street that already lacks architectural integrity, increases the apparent bulk of the building and the roof is an avoidable exceedance  of the height control.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that the amended plans submitted to council on the 17/2/2016 reduced the pitch of the original roof form so that the majority of the roof is contained within the maximum building height standard, the proposed roof form is still considered to be a dominating and bulky element within the visual catchment along Arden Street and is still an avoidable non-compliance with the height control. It is considered that the proposal does not meet the relevant objectives and controls outlined in Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 – Roof Design or Clause 5.6 – Architectural Roof Features, and as such the roof form is not exempt from the maximum allowable building height control outlined under Clause 4.3. (See section 4 above relating to exemption to development standards for further breakdown of non-compliance with Clause 4.3).

 

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 poses a number of concerns with respect to the objectives and controls of the relevant planning policies.

 

The scale and design of the proposed development is considered to be unsuitable for the site and is inconsistent with the desired future character of the locality. The proposed size, bulk and scale will also give rise to detrimental impacts to surrounding residential properties in terms of visual bulk and loss of views. As such the proposed development does not satisfy the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

Accordingly, the application is recommended for refusal

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council does not support the exception to the development standard under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 and Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental         Plan 2012, relating to building height and floor space ratio on the grounds that the proposed development does not comply with the objectives of the floor space ratio and height standards and will adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 695/2015 for the demolition of all existing structures, consolidation of two lots, construction of a 4 storey residential flat building in two building forms containing 17 dwellings, basement car parking for 29 vehicles, landscaping, strata subdivision and associated works (variation to F.S.R and height control) at 325-327 Arden Street, Coogee for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone related to recognising the desirable elements of the existing streetscape and built form, contributing to the desired future character of the area, and protecting the amenity of surrounding residents, which are specified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

2.       The proposal exceeds the maximum building height of 12m specified in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

3.       The proposal exceeds the maximum F.S.R of 0.9:1 specified in Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

4.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives of Clause 6.7 – Foreshore Scenic Protection Area in that the proposed development dominates and detracts from the scenic qualities within the foreshore scenic protection area.

 

5.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant controls and objectives in relation to side setbacks contained within Randwick DCP 2013 Part C2, Clause 3.4.2.

 

6.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant controls and objectives in relation to roof design contained within Randwick DCP 2013 Part C2, Clause 4.2.

 

7.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant controls and objectives in relation to external wall height contained within Randwick DCP 2013 Part C2, Clause 4.4.

 

8.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant controls and objectives in relation to Visual Privacy contained within Randwick DCP 2013 Part C2, Clause 5.3.

 

9.       The proposal does not satisfy the relevant controls and objectives in relation to View Sharing contained within Randwick DCP 2013 Part C2, Clause 5.5.

 

10.     The proposal does not satisfy the design principle for Built Form and Scale, and Aesthetics specified in Schedule 1 of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 –Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

11.     The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 3F-1 Visual Privacy of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

12.     The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 4D Apartment Size and Layout of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

13.     The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 4G Storage of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

14.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 79C(1) (b),(c) and (e) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for natural and built environmental impacts, suitability of the site, and the public interest.

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 325-327 Arden Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP11/16

 

Subject:                  14 Clifton Road, Clovelly (DA/636/2014/A)

Folder No:               DA/636/2014/A

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

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by reconstruction of ground level front portion of dwelling. Original consent: Alterations to the front of the existing dwelling to accommodate a new front carport and front boundary fence

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Mr I T Smith

Owner:                    Mr I T Smith & Mrs C J Smith

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=7a62be22-afea-4c20-9fc1-01877cbf4089&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application seeks to modify the original consent which was approved by the Planning Committee on 11 November 2014. The original application was referred to Council as the applicant is related to a Randwick City Councillor. The existing approval involved alterations to the front of the existing dwelling to accommodate a new front carport and front boundary fence.

 

Proposal

 

This S96(1A) application seeks retrospective approval for the reconstruction of the ground level front portion of the dwelling, being the enclosed verandah, to the north of the approved carport.

 

Specifically, the proposed works involve the following:

 

§ New ground floor slab and footings;

§ New front window to match the existing;

§ New fibre cement weatherboard cladding, to match existing;

§ New timber wall framing;

§ Removal of northern side window; and

§ Replace existing tiled roof with a colourbond roof and gutter to match the approved carport.

 

During the construction of the approved carport (DA/636/2014), it was identified that the remaining portion (northern side) of the sunroom was structurally unsound. Therefore, the application seeks to amend the original development consent to include the reconstruction of the front portion of the dwelling, in association with the approved carport. 

 

Site

The site is located on the western side of Clifton Road between Boundary Street to the north and Burnie Street to the south. The site has a frontage of 9.45m to Clifton Road, a site depth of 40.23m and site area of 380.2m2. The site contains a 2 storey detached dwelling house.

 

Works are currently being undertaken on the subject site to allow for a new carport within the front setback and associated front boundary fence (DA/636/2014).

 

Figure 1: Front elevation of the existing dwelling at 14 Clifton Road, illustrating the approved carport and associated works to the front portion of the dwelling

391

Figure 2: Neighbouring dwelling to the south of the subject site

 

393

Figure 3: Neighbouring dwelling to the north of the subject site.

 

Submissions

 

Public notification was not required as part of this s96 (1A) modification.

 

Key Issues

 

S96 Assessment

 

Under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the proposal remains substantially the same development. In this respect, it is considered that the proposed changes will not result in a significant change to the nature of the original consent and therefore the proposed modifications will continue to result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which consent was granted.

 

Overall, the proposed modifications seeks to reconstruct the existing front portion of the dwelling, in association with the approved carport, as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 4 below.

 

Figure 4: View of the constructed / proposed works from the north of the site

 

The proposed works are therefore consistent with the approved development. As the front verandah is to be reconstructed in its original form there are no additional amenity impacts that would result from the proposed modification.

 

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 application to modify the consent satisfies the relevant assessment criteria and is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development No. DA/636/2014/A for the reconstruction of the ground level front portion of the dwelling, at No. 14 Clifton Road, Clovelly, in the following manner:

 

·        Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA-00

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

16 Sep 2014

DA-01

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

16 Sep 2014

DA-02

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

16 Sep 2014

DA-03

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

16 Sep 2014

N-01

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

16 Sep 2014

N-02

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

16 Sep 2014

 

As amended by the s96 A plans as detailed below, only in so far as the relate to modification highlighted in the plans:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA-00

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

29 Feb 2016

DA-01

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

29 Feb 2016

DA-03

Chapman Architecture

16.09.2014

29 Feb 2016

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP12/16

 

Subject:                  58 Pauling Avenue, Coogee (DA/781/2015)

Folder No:               DA/781/2015

Author:                    Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to dwelling, including new first floor, pavilion to rear, landscaping, fencing and associated works

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Roth Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                    C Magnus

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=a6f6cc85-1f7a-4956-bdb6-710759dc51bd&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Matson, Neilson and Shurey.

 

Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including an addition to the rear of the dwelling and a new upper level. The site falls steeply from the rear to the front with a difference in levels in excess of 14m. The addition to the rear of the dwelling will be excavated within the rear yard and the roof of the ground floor addition will then become a trafficable roof terrace that joins the upper level and a rear garden pavilion.

 

Amended plans have been received at Council’s request to provide for privacy screens to both sides of the courtyard and to amend the roof form of the garden pavilion to make the roof less prominent.

 

Site

 

The site is on the eastern side of Pauling Avenue and has a site area of 269m². At present on site there is a single storey semi detached dwelling. The site falls steeply from the rear to the front with a difference in level of approximately 13m. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of semi detached and free standing dwellings.

 

Image 1: Subject site

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Issue

Comment

 

56 Pauling Avenue Coogee

 

-There are concerns in relation to the FSR and the merit assessment of it.

 

-The building footprint exceeds that established by the adjoining buildings.

 

-There are concerns in relation to privacy from the rear pavilion and terrace. The screen planting is not adequate and any physical screens will create additional issues of bulk close to the boundary.

 

-The new access stairs close to their boundary will create issues in relation to noise and privacy.

 

-The proposal will require extensive excavation which raises concerns as to the integrity of their property and the stability of their existing retaining walls.

 

 

-A dilapidation report is necessary prior to any excavation works commencing.

 

 

-The building of the proposed kitchen area and new building entrance close to their boundary will create further issues of bulk, scale and privacy to their property.

 

 

-The eave overhang will impact upon their light and outlook from their side windows.

 

-The glazing along the side of the upper level is excessive and will lead to a loss of privacy for their ground floor windows.

 

 

60 Pauling Avenue Coogee

 

-There are concerns in relation to the amount of overshadowing into their backyard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The extent of the 6m masonry wall on the boundary will block out sunlight between 11am to 4pm.

 

 

 

 

-There are concerns in relation to noise, lighting and privacy issues from the use of the pavilion.

 

-There are concerns in relation to the stability of their backyard and approved swimming pool.

 

 

 

-Would like to view the engineering plans in relation to the depth of piling.

 

 

 

-There are concerns in relation to the impact that the development will have upon the value of their property.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed FSR of 0.62:1 is consistent with the nearby two storey dwellings.

 

The building footprint satisfies the DCP setback controls.

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

Conditions of consent have been included with respect to detailed structural engineering investigation and plans being undertaken and a dilapidation report prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

A condition of consent is included to require the preparation of a dilapidation report.

 

See Key Issues in relation to privacy. The overall bulk of the building is consistent with neighbouring two storey dwellings. A condition of consent is included to require that the kitchen wall be setback 900mm from the side boundary.

 

A condition of consent is included to limit the eave overhang to a maximum of 450mm.

 

See discussion in the RDCP section, Privacy

 

 

 

 

 

Due to the site orientation there will be some additional overshadowing to the adjoining property which arises because of the east west orientation of this site and the location of the adjoining site directly to the south. The private open space of the adjoining property will continue to receive the minimum of 3 hours of solar access as required by the DCP control.

 

See comments above. The wall on the boundary is not 6m in height as most of the wall is below the existing ground level because of the excavation of the site behind the existing rear portion of the dwelling.

 

See Key Issues

 

 

 

A condition of consent is included with respect to the investigation and preparation of structural engineer details in relation to ensuring the structural stability of the adjoining properties.

 

Detailed engineering plans are not included with the development application for consultation during the assessment process.

 

An assessment of property values is not a relevant matter for consideration.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Private open space

 

Due to the site topography which is very steep it is very difficult to provide for a level area of private open space that strictly complies. The provided area will allow for an area of usable private open space for the occupants.

 

Privacy

 

The proposal details a courtyard off the rear of the dwelling, at the level of the first floor with a pavilion behind, all at an RL of 24.6. The courtyard includes privacy screens to both sides to prevent direct overlooking into the adjoining properties and the privacy screens are set back at least 900mm from the side boundaries.

 

It is noted that there would be a benefit to the adjoining property at No.60 Pauling Avenue to require the privacy screen to be of obscured glazing which would minimise overshadowing impacts to their adjoining swimming pool area. A condition to this effect is included to ensure that the screen operates as intended.

 

The floor level of the pavilion is at the same level as the first floor level of the dwelling and is below the level of the adjoining rear terraced yards at No.56 & No.60 Pauling Avenue. Viewing from the western elevation of the pavilion will be almost entirely blocked by the privacy screens that are to be installed to both sides of the courtyard.

 

The pavilion is connected to the dwelling by the courtyard and there is no evidence that the use of this room by the residents would result in any adverse impact to the amenity of the adjoining residents, especially given that this room is an enclosed space with only fixed highlight windows to the side elevations. The visual impact of this building is not significant as this part of the dwelling is to be constructed within the excavated rear yard area with the floor level that is 1.2m below the level of the rear yard at No.56 and 1.52m below the level of the rear yard at No.60. The overall bulk and scale of the pavilion has been reduced from the original proposal by lowering the walls by 800mm and providing for a hipped roof in lieu of the previous skillion roof so that the apparent height of the building from the adjoining properties is lower.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 781/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 58 Pauling Avenue Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The sill height of the study room window on the northern elevation at first floor level is to be increased to be a minimum height of 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window is to be fixed and provided with obscured glazing below 1.6m above the floor level.

 

b.   The northern external wall of the kitchen at ground floor level must be setback from the northern side boundary in line with the existing dwelling.

 

c.   The privacy screens on the northern and southern sides of the rear courtyard must be constructed of fixed and obscured glazing in a suitable frame having a height of 1600mm above the level of the courtyard.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 58 Pauling Avenue, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP13/16

 

Subject:                  68 Frenchmans Road, Randwick (DA/600/2015)

Folder No:               DA/600/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions  to the existing vehicle body repair workshop to include a new mansard roof addition to enclose the upper level workshop/parking area and  new storage room fronting Frenchmans Road including associated fencing and landscaping

 

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               ABC Planning Pty. Ltd.

Owner:                    Mr. N. Bourdaniotis, Mrs. E Bourdaniotis and Mr. Z. Keledjian

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=0318e043-1d59-4c76-b55e-6cef402a19cf&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions  to the existing vehicle body repair workshop to include a new mansard roof addition to enclose the upper level workshop/parking area and  new storage room fronting Frenchmans Road including associated fencing and landscaping.

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 243471 and also known as 68 Frenchmans Road. The subject site is located on the intersection between Frenchmans Road and Searle Avenue and is an irregular triangular shaped allotment with its longest boundaries fronting the street. The subject site comprises of the following area and dimensions:

 

Boundary

Length

Site Area

North-western boundary

(Frenchmans Road)

34.65m

 

 

480.6m2

Eastern boundary

(Searle Avenue)

36.66m

South-western boundary

(Side/rear boundary)

26.64m

 

The existing development comprises of a two storey vehicle body repair workshop with machinery provided at the ground floor level and parking at the rooftop level with vehicular access ramp from Searle Avenue. Vehicular access to the ground floor level workshop is provided through both Frenchmans Road and Searle Avenue.

 

Neighbouring the site to the north-west (on the opposite side of Frenchmans Road) is a row of three storey shop top housing developments, to the east (on the opposite side of Searle Avenue) is a row of single and two storey semi-detached dwellings and free standing dwellings and to the south-west is an existing heritage item described as "Venice" a grand late Victorian/early Edwardian house which is registered under the State Heritage register (identification no. 1380).

 

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.

 

Development History

 

DA/245/1987

 

Development consent was granted on the 10 December 1987 to end the parking area to the roof of the existing building. Access to the roof top parking area is via a ramp from Searle Avenue. A condition of consent was included that all mechanical repairs to vehicles being made within the existing enclosed workshop area and that no repair work must be undertaken on the roof car park or on Council’s footpath.


 

 

DA/269/1989

Development consent was granted on the 18 October 1989 for alterations and additions to the existing building by adding a mezzanine floor above the offices for use as a change and lunch rooms. A condition of consent was included that all mechanical repairs to vehicles being made within the existing enclosed workshop area and that no repair work must be undertaken on the roof car park or on Council’s footpath.

 

PL/25/2011

A prelodgement application was submitted to Council in 2011 which sought alterations and additions to an existing automotive workshop including construction of a mansard roof to create an enclosed parking/workshop space and a storage area at ground level. The advice provided by Council alerted the applicant to the requirements of the heritage Clauses in Council’s LEP and the need for a heritage impact statement.

 

Key Issues

 

Existing Use Rights:

The proposed development involves alterations and new upper floor addition to an existing 'Vehicle Body Repair Workshop' (as defined by the RLEP2012) and is a prohibited form of development within the R2: Low Density Residential. Therefore the applicant is seeking development consent under Division 10: Existing Use Rights of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

 

Section 106 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 provides a definition for "existing use". The prerequisite to establishing existing use rights is that the use of the building, work or land for a lawful purpose immediately before the coming into force of an environmental planning instrument which would have the effect of prohibiting that use. Further, under Section 107, the use is presumed to have been abandoned, unless the contrary is established, if the use ceases for a continuous period of 12 months. In the circumstances of the subject application there is adequate evidence to suggest that the use has been continuous. However no previous development consent has been issued for the use of the roof top level to be used as a workshop.

 

In view of the application history, it is considered that existing use rights apply to the site under Part 4, Division 10 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, and as such provide a basis for the assessment of this application despite the fact that 'vehicle body repair workshops' are prohibited within the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone.

 

The principles to be considered when undertaking a merits assessment of a proposed redevelopment of a site has been relatively settled as part of the planning principles in Fodor Investments v. Hornsby Shire Council [2005] NSWLEC71.

 

An assessment under the principles is as follows:

 

·      How do the bulk and scale (as expressed by height, floor space ratio and setbacks) of the proposal relate to what is permissible on surrounding sites?

 

While planning controls, such as height, floor space ratio and setbacks do not apply to sites with existing use rights; they have relevance to the assessment of applications on such sites. This is because the controls apply to surrounding sites and indicate the kind of development that can be expected if and when surrounding sites are redeveloped. The relationship of new development to its existing and likely future context is a matter to be considered in all planning assessment.

 

The building height of the new upper floor mansard roof addition results in a breach to the maximum permissible building height of 9.5 metres as prescribed by Clause 4.4: Building Heights within the RLEP2012. The development exceeds the maximum building height requirement by approximately 500mm across the length of the site along the Frenchmans road frontage of the building and measured at the top most portion of the mansard. The building envelope also significantly exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio of 0.75:1 to 1.3:1 and the new roof top addition will maintain the side setbacks from the existing development from Frenchmans Road and Searle Avenue. The non-compliances to the building controls as a merits assessment all contributes to the apparent bulk and scale of the building.

 

The proposed bulk of the development is incompatible with the neighbouring residential dwellings in particular that of the adjoining heritage item at no. 66 Frenchmans Road and neighbouring heritage item at no. 6 Barrett Place. Council's Heritage Planner has advised that the non-compliance to the building height and nominal setback from the street alignment adds significant visual bulk to an already dominant structure and compromises the vista to the 'Venice' building from the south-west and single storey heritage item to the north. The excessive bulk and scale of the development impacts the positive contribution that these buildings make within the streetscape setting and the heritage value of the adjoining building.

 

In addition to this, the new upper floor level is considered to be excessive in size and scale which is contributed largely due to the mansard roof design. The roof form contains similar characteristics as an external wall given its steeply pitched roof form and is set up to the property boundaries which results in a visual obtrusive element that is visible from the streetscape. The site is also constrained in its irregular allotment shape and its corner positioning at the intersection of Frenchmans Road and Searle Avenue and therefore more appropriate design measures should be considered to minimise the perceivable bulk of the building and the impact it has to the primary view corridors along Frenchmans Road. A comparison in building height to the three storey buildings on the opposite side of Frenchmans Road should also have little weight given the buildings are classified under a different  land  zoning which permits for commercial and residential land use as well as higher density developments in terms of building height and floor space.

 

·      What is the relevance of the building in which the existing takes place?

 

Where the change of use is proposed within an existing building, the bulk and scale of that building are likely to be deemed acceptable, even if the building is out of scale with its surroundings, because it already exists. However, where the existing building is proposed for demolition, while its bulk is clearly an important consideration, there is no automatic entitlement to another building of the same floor space ratio, height or parking provision.

 

The new mansard roof element does not remain relevant to the existing building or the permitted uses of the new upper floor level. A previous development application (DA/245/1987) was approved for the provision of a car parking area on the roof top of the building with a condition included that 'all mechanical repairs to vehicles being made within the existing enclosed workshop area and that no repair work being undertaken on the roof car park or on Council's footpaths'. This condition was reiterated on a further development consent (DA/269/1989) which permitted the approval for mezzanine floor within the building. The proposed mansard roof with a building 'height of 4.697 metres above the finished floor level of the existing roof top level is excessive in size should it be solely used for the purpose of vehicular parking. The submitted plans include an annotation which identifies the roof level use as an 'existing workshop/parking level' and the statement of environmental effects does not clarify the use of the roof top addition. Therefore, in considering the excessive height of the mansard roof to accommodate vehicular hoists and the plans seeking to legitimize the use of the roof level as a workshop it is clear that there is intent to use the roof top addition for purposes other than vehicle parking.

 

Furthermore, no consent can be granted to use the rooftop level as a workshop. Council's Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the development application and advised that an acoustic report has not been submitted and acoustic compliance has not been demonstrated in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act and relevant guidelines to Industrial Noise Policy. Further, no waste management details, pollution control measures or compliance with the NSW EPA Guidelines for Environmental Action for Auto Servicing & Repairs has been provided to Council. In considering the above, the new upper floor level does not have any relevance to the existing building.

 

·      What are the impacts on the adjoining land?

 

The impact on adjoining land should be assessed as it is assessed for all development. It is true that where, for example, a development control plan requires three hours of sunlight to be maintained in adjoining rear  yards,  the  numerical control does not apply. However, the overshadowing impact on adjoining rear yards should be reasonable.

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing vehicle repair body workshop will compromise the heritage significance of the immediate adjoining heritage item at no. 66 Frenchmans Road. Council's heritage planning officer has advised that the new mansard  roof addition,  storage  room  and  timber  screening  on top  of  the  existing retaining wall will all contribute to a development that visually dominates, competes and conceals the existing heritage fabric of the building and the view vistas obtainable from the north-east and south-west of Frenchmans Roads.

 

With regards to the amenity the development is also expected to contribute to additional amenity impacts to the neighbouring premises. The new window opening along the south-western elevation faces the habitable room window of the neighbouring building and does not provide ample building separation to minimise the opportunities for overlooking. Further, any such use for the roof top to be used as a workshop will create further noise and emissions that has not been addressed within the statement of environmental effects.

 

·      What is the internal amenity?

 

Internal amenity must be assessed as it is assessed for all development. Again, numerical requirements for sunlight access or private open space do not apply, but these and other aspects must be judged acceptable as a matter of good planning and design. None of the legal principles discussed above suggests that development on sites with existing use rights may have lower amenity than development generally.

 

The new upper floor level will continue to provide a reasonable level of internal amenity to the existing vehicle repair body workshop at the  upper floor  level. The new addition includes skylight windows to provide natural light into the space and mechanical ventilation at the roof top level.

 

Merits Based Assessment:

In accordance with Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) a merits based assessment has been provided of the development and its compliance with existing use rights.

 

·      Solar Access and Overshadowing:

 

An overshadowing analysis has been carried out by Council and the north-east facing windows of the existing heritage item at no. 66 Frenchmans Road to the south. The ground floor north-east facing dormer window will receive no direct solar access between the hours of Sam - 2pm. However, the shadowing is a result of the existing external wall adjacent to the vehicular access ramp at RL 7S.2 and subsequently the shadowing to this window is acceptable given it is as existing. All other ground floor north-east facing window openings will receive the required three hours of 8am - 4pm, 21 June.

 

·      Visual Bulk and Scale

 

Refer to above discussion of visual bulk and scale impacts.

 

·      Visual Privacy

 

The proposal does not provide a reasonable level of visual privacy to the south­ eastern neighbouring building. The proposed skylight windows located along the mansard roof appear as a solitary window given they are set on the steep sloping roof form and are not positioned on the roof top of the mansard roof element. Subsequently, the window allows a direct outlook into the first floor dormer window and the separation of 8 metres is insufficient to minimise the opportunities for overlooking into the neighbouring building. The proposal does not maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy and the placement and lack of screening of the window allows for direct overlooking into the neighbouring window. The development does not provide a reasonable level of visual privacy and has been recommended for refusal.

 

The proposal does not contribute to any loss of water or iconic views from the subject premises and therefore does not contribute to any view loss impacts.

 

Heritage Conservation:

Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP2012) requires Council to consider the heritage impact whether to an existing heritage item or heritage conservation area or on land that is within the vicinity of a heritage item/heritage conservation area. The objectives of Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation is as follows:

 

a)  to conserve the environmental heritage of Randwick

b)  to conserve the heritage significance of heritage items and heritage conservation areas, including associated fabric, settings and views

c)  to conserve archaeological sites

d)  to conserve Aboriginal objectives and Aboriginal places of heritage significance

 

The development application has been reviewed by Council's heritage planning officer and advised that the proposal does not comply with the above objectives. The existing workshop is already dominant in terms of visual bulk and the additional building volume from the mansard roof and the nil setbacks from the street alignments will further exacerbate the apparent scale of the building and its relationship to the neighbouring heritage item at no. 66 Frenchmans Road. In addition to this, the new storage shed and timber screening forward of the building alignment and on the western side of the building will further compromise direct sightlines from the south-western view corridor of the heritage building given it Comprises of a larger building envelope and height. It should also be noted that the building also of local and state heritage significance and identified under the Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet as a 'prominent building making a valuable streetscape contribution'.

 

Similarly, further concerns have been raised with regards to the appreciable visual bulk and scale of the new upper floor level which will detract from the streetscape setting of "Barrett House" of the adjoining heritage item at no. 6 Barrett Place.

 

Parking:

Part B7, Section 3.2: Vehicle Parking Rates of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 specifies that a minimum of 6 parking spaces are required per working bay and 1space per 25sqm. Currently, the ground floor occupies two separate working bays (as approved per DA/269/1989; see images below) with approval for 5 car spaces at the roof top level. In considering the number of work bays and the existing ground level measures approximately 270sqm – the current development requires 23 parking spaces and represents a shortfall of 18 parking spaces. Therefore the introduction of additional work bays will result in the removal of the existing off street parking spaces at the roof level, result in a further non-compliance to Council’s minimum parking requirements and impact the availability of on-street parking within the surrounding street network. It should also be noted that currently there is limited availability of on-street parking, in particular at the intersection of Frenchmans Road and Searle Avenue given the close proximity to the Frenchmans Road neighbourhood centre. In considering the above, the proposed development will result in a substantial deviation to the vehicular parking rate requirement for a vehicle repair body workshop and is likely to result in parking spillage within the immediate locality. The application is not supported in its current form. 

 

Image 1: Approved ground floor level as per DA/245/1987

 

Image 2: Approved first floor plan of parking area at roof top level as per DA/269/1989.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing building will visually dominate the appearance of the adjoining heritage items including no. 66 Frenchmans  Road (I380) and no. 6 Barrett Place and will compromise  the  contribution  the  buildings make within the streetscape setting. The development is excessive in size and scale and the overall design scheme is not sympathetic to its surroundings which results in a built form that reduces the views and vistas of the heritage buildings.

 

The proposal does not satisfy the planning principles for the redevelopment of a site with existing use rights as outlined within Fodor Investments vs. Hornsby Shire Council given the development does not address the appreciable bulk and scale impacts, the relevance of the upper floor level, the amenity impacts to the adjoining neighbours and the internal amenity. In considering the above, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/600/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing vehicle body repair workshop to include a new mansard roof addition to enclose the upper level workshop/parking area and  new storage room fronting Frenchmans Road including associated fencing and landscaping, at No. 68 Frenchmans Road, RANDWICK, 2031 subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

1.       The proposed rooftop enclosure will increase the height of an already dominant structure and further detract from the setting of the immediately adjacent heritage item, when viewed from the south west, and views towards the heritage item from the north east. The proposed rooftop enclosure will also detract from the streetscape setting of the single storey heritage item on the opposite side of Frenchman's Road.

 

2.       The proposed storage shed within the front setback area of the site will further detract from the setting of the immediately adjacent heritage item,  when viewed from the south west, and views towards  the heritage  item  from  the north east.

 

3.       The proposed rooftop enclosure and storage shed will detracting from the local and State heritage significance of "Venice", the heritage item immediately adjacent to the south.

 

4.       The proposal does not comply with the relevant objectives of Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

5.       The proposal will result in adverse privacy impacts with direct overlooking into the habitable room windows of the south-western neighbour.

 

6.       The proposal is visually intrusive and will compromise the appearance of the building within the streetscape.

 

7.       The documentation submitted with the application is deficient  of  information and does not address the use of the first floor level.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 68 Frenchmans Road, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP14/16

 

Subject:                  Planning Proposal - 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington

Folder No:               F2015/00419

Author:                    Richard Hulajko, Strategic Planning Consultant     

 

Introduction

This report assesses the merits of a Planning Proposal (spot rezoning) application received by Council, which proposes an increase in the permissible building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for land at 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington, located within the Kensington Town Centre (Figure 1). The Planning Proposal application was submitted by JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd on behalf of developer TOGA Kensington Pty Ltd. The proponent has also submitted a second Planning Proposal for land at 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington which is also being reported as a separate report in this Business Paper.

 

The submitted Planning Proposal is seeking Council’s support to commence a planning process for an amendment to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 which seeks to increase the permissible height controls to 85m and introduce a FSR of 7:1. The various parcels of land currently have height limit of 12m, 21m and 25m. No FSR applies under the RLEP 2012 FSR Map as the land is subject to building envelope controls by the Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013.

 

The subject site is not considered to be an appropriate location to incorporate a 85m (25 storey) high tower buildings forming the focal point of the Town Centre, especially given its excessive bulk and scale and likely overshadowing impacts on the immediately surrounding buildings (both existing and future development).

 

The subject Planning Proposal is not considered as the most efficient or most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site and the remainder of the Kensington Town Centre. A comprehensive Town Centre study review is currently underway as part of a broader strategic review of the planning framework this is a more appropriate means to enable consideration of a wide range of factors influencing the Town Centre. As such the Planning Proposal will undermine Council’s strategic Planning process and future character of the Kensington Town Centre.

 

The subject Planning Proposal is considered excessive for the site and would create significant negative impact on urban amenity within the entire neighbourhood. It needs to be noted that recently Council and subsequently JRPP rejected two similar Planning Proposal applications for sites at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington and 395, 397-397A Anzac Parade (Triangle Site), Kingsford.

 

It is recommended that the request to amend Height of Buildings Map from partly 12m, 21m and 25m to 85m and introduce FSR of 7:1 under the RLEP 2012 for the site located at 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue not be supported.

 

Background

On 4 November 2015, a pre-lodgement meeting was held between the proponent and the Council’s officers regarding the subject Planning Proposal located at the corner of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue, Kensington. The proponent presented a design concept for the subject site being amalgamation of 7 lots containing 4 buildings at 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington (Figure 1). The draft concept presented at the meeting was based on investigations carried out on the height of the proponent’s future building envelopes that could be developed within the Kensington Town Centre.

 

Council’s officers advised that a broad strategic review of both Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres was currently underway and a comprehensive analysis of opportunities and needs is being carried out to inform a planning strategy. Council officers also advised that the height and FSR could not be justified or supported in this context.

 

Outcomes of Similar Recent Planning Proposals

In the case of two recent similar Planning Proposal applications for sites at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington and 395, 397-397A Anzac Parade (Triangle Site), Kingsford the Council resolved to refuse both Planning Proposals on the basis that adequate justification had not been provided to warrant changes to the RLEP 2012 height and FSR controls. Particularly since the wider Kensington Town Centre controls had recently been established under the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013. Furthermore, concerns were raised that the proposed redevelopment resulting from the requested changes to the planning controls would be out of scale and bare little relationship to the surrounding residential context and existing character of the Centre.

 

Subsequently the JRPP also resolved that while the Anzac Parade Corridor may be suitable for increased density due to proposed upgrading of public transport capacity in the future, this should be done in the context of a comprehensive approach of wider issues rather than be restricted to the context of one site. In considering these Planning Proposals; the JRPP was unanimous in the view that the building height and FSR of these Planning Proposals have not been justified either by spare public transport capacity or by urban considerations.

 

Subject Site

The subject site of 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington is located on prominent corner of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue in the middle of Kensington Town Centre (Figure 1). The site is 2,945m² in area and has street frontage of approximately 60m to Anzac Parade and about 50m to Todman Avenue. It is located adjacent to the future Todman Avenue light rail stop.

 

The site consists of 4 double storey buildings of various styles situated on 7 lots. The consolidated allotments on the site contain the following:

 

Table 1 – Current parcels of land uses on the subject site

 

Address

Lot No

Current Land Use

111 Anzac Parade

Lot 3 in DP3897

Sport medicine business

113-115 Anzac Parade

Lot 1 in DP938380

Lot 4 in DP655026

Gymnasium

117-119 Anzac Parade

Lot A in DP107256

Lot B in DP107256

Dental laboratory

121-125 Anzac Parade

Lot 1 in DP956200

Restaurant

112 Todman Avenue

Lot 2 in DP344524

Open car parking

 


 

Figure 1 - Location of Subject Site

 

 

Description of Surrounding Area

The site lies approximately 7 km southeast of the Sydney CBD and about 5 km northeast from Sydney Airport. The site is in close proximity to major open space and institutional sites, including Moore Park and Centennial Park to its north, Randwick Racecourse to the east, and UNSW and the Randwick Hospitals Campus to the southeast. It is surrounded by a mix of building types, including commercial buildings, semi-detached dwelling houses, old style walk-up flats and more recent residential flat buildings up to 7 storeys.

 

Immediately to the north at 105-109 Anzac Parade is recently completed a 7 storey mixed use building containing commercial premises on ground floor and residential apartments above. Further north, across Duke Street is a dwelling house and opposite the site at 84-108 Anzac Parade is a 7 storey mixed use redevelopment currently under construction, which was subject to a Planning Proposal that was refused by Council and the JRPP. The development immediately west of the site along Todman Avenue comprises a row of single storey detached dwelling houses.

 

Immediately south, on the other side of Todman Avenue is a ‘7 Eleven’ Service Station and 2 storeys, 3 storeys and 4 storeys flat buildings. Immediately to the south of the service station is a 4 storey walk-up flat and a single storey dwelling house and hotel. A variety of land uses are located on the eastern side of Anzac Parade opposite the subject site, predominantly double storey commercial buildings with retail on the ground floor and residential use on the upper floors.

 

The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Randwick LEP 2012 to increase the maximum building height under the Randwick DCP 2012 from part 12m, part 21m and part 25m to 85m, to accommodate an indicative 25 storey building containing mixed use retailing on the ground and first floor and residential apartments on upper levels. The Planning Proposal also seeks to introduce an FSR of 7:1 for the site.

 


 

Table 2 - Summary of proposed changes

 

 

Current

Proposed

Zone

B2 Local Centre

No change

Height of Buildings

12m, 21m and 25m

85m

Floor Space Ratio

Not applicable – under RLEP 2012

7:1

 

This Planning Proposal application is accompanied by a number of reports being:

 

a.  Concept Design Report prepared by Bates Smart TM,

b.  Anzac Parade Corridor Analysis prepared by SJB Architects,

c.   Heritage Statement prepared by NRBS+Partners,

d.  Contamination Due Diligence Assessment prepared by Douglas Partners,

e.  Hazardous Materials Report prepared by Douglas Partners,

f.   Traffic Report prepared by GTA Consultants,

g.  Proposed LEP Height and FSR Maps prepared by Bates Smart, and

h.  Aeronautical Safety Statement prepared by The Ambidji Group Pty Ltd.

 

The reports address the need for a mixed use redevelopment on the subject site to take advantage of the adjacent proposed Todman Avenue Station of the South East Light Rail project and as a gatewaymarker’ on the Anzac Parade corridor. The reports also address the consistency of the proposal within State and local planning objectives and directions as well as the public benefits.

 

Relevant Planning Controls

Randwick LEP 2012

The land to which this Planning Proposal applies is zoned B2 Local Centre under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012. The Kensington Town Centre is surrounded by R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land, with the exception of the Kokoda Park (zoned RE1 Public Recreation) and Kensington Public School (zoned SP2 Educational Establishment) on the eastern side of Anzac Parade (Figure 2).

 

Figure 2 – Current Zoning

 

 

The maximum height control for the site is 25m, which is the predominant height limit for the Town Centre. Other height controls applying to the site are 12m, 21m (Figure 3). The Kensington Town Centre is subject to building envelope controls and there is no FSR control applying to the subject site. The height control for the adjacent R3 zoned residential area around the Town Centre is 12m.

 

Residential flat buildings and shop top housing are permissible uses (among other uses) within this zone subject to development consent. The site does not contain any heritage items. However, there are large heritage conservation areas to the north, west and east of the site, being the North Randwick, West Kensington and Racecourse conservation areas.

 

Figure 3 – Current Height of Building Height Limit

 

 

Randwick DCP 2013

The subject land is located within “Block 09 – Todman Avenue to Duke Street” of the Randwick DCP Chapter D1 Kensington Centre.

 

The DCP states that the contributory building on the Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue corner creates the opportunity for Mews style development at the rear, connected to Todman Avenue and Anzac Parade by a pedestrian and visual through link, which should be permanently open to public access (Figure 4).

 

The key building envelope controls for Block 9 set out in the DCP (Figure 5) are as follows:

 

·      Contributory building (pub style development) on the corner of Anzac Parade/Todman Avenue should remain 2 storeys in height and 5 storeys separate building to the west,

·      street wall height of 4 storeys to Anzac Parade and Duke Street to the depth of 4m;

·      6 storeys to the main part of the building, with 5 storey to the rear facing development of R3 Medium Density Residential and Todman Avenue to the depth of 4m,

·      7th level permissible under the roof structure,

·      Continuous street frontage awnings along Duke Street, Anzac Parade and partly Todman Avenue, but colonnades are suggested to the rear,

·      Rear carriageway adjoining premises to the west.

 

Figure 4 – DCP’s Proposed Layout and Height of Buildings

 

 

Figure 5 – DCP’s Proposed Development Cross Section East-West Looking North

 

 

The existing controls for the Town Centre (as provided in DCP 2013 Chapter D1) were established following a major planning/design review in 2001/02 with extensive community consultation which determined the appropriate architectural character of the Town Centre, articulation requirements and building heights. Specific quality design outcomes contained in the DCP aim to improve the function of the Town Centre, its image and amenity. The DCP encourages site amalgamation through bonuses in the building envelopes.

 

The DCP controls have generally been consistently applied across the Town Centre and this allows the desired objectives of taller buildings along the main road transitioning to lower scale adjoining residential to be achieved. The development immediately to the north of the site is one such example. The existing controls were established therefore to respond to the specific context of the Town Centre highlighting the need for well-proportioned buildings, maintaining desired view corridors, managing overshadowing impacts, access to sunlight and privacy. These controls provide a balance between the need to ensure that the Town Centre provides capacity for mixed use development whilst minimising adverse impacts.

 

Metropolitan Plan for Sydney

Released in 2014, the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney A Plan for Growing Sydney is a 20 year strategic plan that sets the NSW Government’s vision for housing and economic growth, the environment and infrastructure. District plans (or sub-regional plans) will guide the delivery of the Metropolitan Plan across the six new regions to provide an additional 664,000 homes and 689,000 jobs by 2031.

 

The district plans (sub-regional plans) are to address: the distribution of housing and employment at the LGA level and the infrastructure required to support housing and employment growth within the region. The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) is to release dwelling and employment targets for the each district in the near future.

 

In relation to the Randwick Urban Activation Precinct (UAP), this has now been shelved and no UAPs currently exist. It should be noted that the State Government’s proposed UAPs were presented in community forums/working groups in 2013 and not publically exhibited for broad community feedback. Council has embarked on its own strategic planning process for the Town Centres rather than respond to ad hoc spot rezoning requests.

 

Town Centre Review

The level of development activity within the Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres has been steady over recent years. There have been a number of sites amalgamated to provide for mixed residential and ground floor business uses as well as student housing in line with existing planning controls. Recent Development adjacent to the subject site located at 105-109 Anzac Parade generally complies with the maximum 25m height control in Council’s LEP.

 

To better understand the specific needs of the community, respond to the District Planning process, identify gaps and market opportunities, Council is working in partnership with the University of NSW City Future Centres on the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres review.

 

On 23 February 2016 Council considered a separate report on the scope, timeframe, methodology and funding for this review. This work will be informed by technical studies with an open and transparent community engagement process that considers and examines matters such as:

 

·      Local and regional planning context,

·      Land use characteristics and future trends (including shopper and business surveys),

·      Social infrastructure,

·      Connectivity and accessibility to infrastructure,

·      Feasibility analysis,

·      Precinct wide transport and parking strategy,

·      public domain landscape and urban design

·      Economic analysis.

 

In considering this report Council resolved:

 

·      To endorse the strategic planning work program for both centres,

·      To approve financial resources for an international competition to develop the vision for both centres (refer to Council resolution attached),

·      To review both centres in order to address issues such as; functional architectural outcome, urban green wall possibilities, balanced commercial opportunity and identify a sense of place.

 

The Issues Paper for both Town Centres review is included in this Business Paper, together with a project timeframe and communication strategy.

 

Analysis and Justification

Merits of the Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal suggests that the intended future development will establish a western gateway at the Anzac Parade/Todman Avenue intersection with a focus on retail services that would be created by the light rail services. Furthermore, the subject site could create a ‘Marker’ adjacent to the proposed Todman Station. The future character of the marker could reinforce the hierarchy of the street pattern by providing visual and architectural interest to the streetscape.

 

Figure 6 - Proponent preferred scenario as a single tower option

 

 

Furthermore, the artist impression contained in the Planning Proposal (Figures 6 and 7) is inaccurate representation of the overall scale and bulk of the development given the angle at which it is shown and the incorporation of buildings which are not constructed, proposed or permissible.

 

Figure 7 - Artist impression of the proposed indicative building envelope

 

 

In support of the Planning Proposal, the applicant has attached a number of studies such as Concept Design Report, Anzac Parade Corridor Analysis, Heritage Statement, Hazardous Materials Report, Traffic Report and an Aeronautical Safety Statement. These reports provide justification for increased building height/dwelling density on the site in the context of the wider Kensington Town Centre. However, the Planning Proposal states that it is not based on any site specific study or report, but has been prepared in response to the strategic significance of the site and location in the vicinity of land adjacent to the proposed light rail station.

 

The Planning Proposal states that the intended redevelopment could provide as many as 231 apartments within the projected building height of the site. This would provide for additional density and housing diversity to make more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Also the Planning Proposal states that there is high demand for housing in the precinct, with much of this demand coming from students and key workers and the supply of additional housing will continue to be the priority for the area.

 

Furthermore, the Planning Proposal states that additional public benefit will be provided by the commercial and retail tenancies on the ground and first floor which will be designed with a wider setback and outdoor dining. This is intended to improve the activation and vibrancy of the area. The proponent also states that further public benefit can be considered at the at the DA stage, however, no details have been provided.

 

Consideration of applicant’s case

It is recognised that Kensington Town Centre’s strategic location close to the CBD, access to public transport and institutions offers opportunities for continued mixed-use development. Moreover, Council’s planning and policy approach in terms of current and future housing needs is to focus the majority of new dwellings in and around town centres (within walking distance to public transport, services, jobs and shops). This approach provides for an efficient use of existing services and infrastructure whilst maintaining the established characters of existing low-scale residential neighbourhoods.

 

However, it is considered that the proposed 85m tower development will create an inconsistent streetscape element with adverse urban design outcomes (Figure 6). The subject site is not considered to be an appropriate location to incorporate an indicative 25-storey tower building forming the focal point of the Town Centre, especially given its significant height and likely overshadowing impacts on the immediately surrounding buildings (both existing and future development). The proposed development has not included sufficient interface treatments in terms of height transitions towards medium density residential to the west, existing development and potential redevelopment of the north facing the southern side of Todman Avenue.

 

It is considered that the Planning Proposal is not the most efficient or most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site and the remainder of the Town Centre. A comprehensive Town Centre strategy is more appropriate to enable consideration of a wide range of factors influencing the Town Centre and that this should be informed by a community engagement strategy.

 

As detailed in this report, the Planning Proposal which seeks to increase the height and density substantially represents an ad hoc approach to planning in this strategically important corridor. “Costs” to the community are likely to arise if the Planning Proposal proceeds given excessive bulk and scale of the proposed development, increase demand for public open space, adverse impacts in the form of streetscape inconsistency, potential overshadowing on adjoining properties and parking demand.

 

It is noted that there is a need for affordable and key worker housing in this location. However, the Planning Proposal does not address affordable housing which is one of the aims of RLEP 2012. Furthermore, Council has commenced work to identify a strategic vision for the Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres within the context of the State Government Metropolitan Plan and consultation with the community. A Planning Proposal such as this should not proceed outside of this strategic context (refer to Town Centres Issues Paper which is included in this Business Paper as a separate report).

 

As a further note, the subject site has 50m and 60m street frontages, this creating an opportunity to fit two (or more) buildings on the site within the height limit, rather than one (1) tower. Randwick DCP 2013 recommends narrow, environmentally sustainable, dual aspects apartments with natural cross ventilation. However, the proposal does not incorporate this suggested outcome.

 

Any proposed changes along Anzac Parade in terms of zoning, permissibility of land uses or building height, needs to be considered comprehensively in terms of their potential amenity impacts, building form outcomes, sustainability, and traffic and parking impacts. The height of buildings as proposed in this location will create adverse impacts on adjoining lower scale residences to the west.

 

Overshadowing

The proposed tower of 85m would create significant overshadowing on its western and eastern neighbours. In the winter morning (9 am) and afternoon (3 pm) shadow impacts would extend for approximately 290m over this dense built up neighbourhood including of residences and commercial facilities.

 

Mid-winter shadow and 23 March/23 September equinox diagrams attached to the urban design report indicate that the intended development which will eventuate from this Planning Proposal will cause significant overshadowing on the northern façade of Todman Avenue and western façade of Anzac Parade. These buildings are potential future redevelopment sites as identified in RDCP 2013.

 

 

Traffic and Parking

The proponent’s Traffic Report states that Anzac Parade is a Classified Road with a four lanes carriageway – two lanes in each direction and having median strip and footpath on each site. It carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day. The median strip is designated to accommodate the proposed Light Rail Corridor connecting the City with Kingsford. Todman Avenue is classified as a Regional Road carrying about 17,000 vehicles per day. The intersection of Anzac parade/Todman Avenue currently experiences queuing and delay during both the AM and PM peak periods.

 

The proponent’s report states that the planned capacity of the light rail can accommodate the proposed development of the subject site and demand generated in the local area. However, the remaining capacity of the light rail and how it should be equitably distributed along the corridor was a significant reason for refusal of previous Planning Proposals.

 

The proponent’s report also states that the subject Planning Proposal does not significantly impact on the operation of the Anzac Parade/Todman Avenue intersection and will have a minor impact on the road network, although this has not been considered in the context of capacity remaining and proposed in both Town Centres.

 

Car parking is currently accommodated within the site on the vacant block located at 112 Todman Avenue. On street parking is permitted on both sides of Todman Avenue and is subject to 2P time restrictions on weekdays. Street parking along Anzac Parade is limited to 30 minute restriction outside of the AM and PM bus lane time periods. However, current parking arrangements will change with the construction of the light rail.

 

Technical studies

If the Planning Proposal were to proceed to the next stage of the Planning Proposal process a comprehensive traffic, parking and transport report would be required to consider the proposal in relation to the proposed light rail along Anzac Parade.

 

Additional studies may be specified by the Department of Planning and Environment as part of the Gateway Determination should the planning proposal proceed.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome

4

Excellence in urban design and development.

Directions

4a:

Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

4b:

New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

Outcome

8:

A strong local economy.

Directions

8c:

Economic growth and development that strengthens our hospital and university precinct.

Outcome

9:

Integrated and accessible Transport.

Directions

9a:

A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycleways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

 

9b:

The community is informed, educated and encouraged to use sustainable transport.

 

9d:

Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic Management.

 

9e:

Parking is managed to balance convenience against reduced car reliance.

 


 

Financial Impact Statement

The applicable fee for the preliminary assessment of the proposal was paid by the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges Policy ($12,416) and further fees will be required should the Planning Proposal progress to the next stage (to cover public consultation costs and further assessment). Assessment of the Planning Proposal has been undertaken on behalf of Council by an in-house planning consultant funded by the applicant’s lodgement fees.

 

Conclusion

The Planning Proposal submitted to Council for the land at 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington is seeking Council’s support to commence a planning process for an amendment to Randwick LEP 2012. The Planning Proposal is based on a residential and urban design analysis prepared by the applicant to support an increase in permissible building height on the land from 12m, 21m and 25m (under current LEP 2012) to 85m and to apply an FSR of 7:1.

 

The Proposal justifies the increase in building height for the subject land on the basis that the site could be identified as a ‘gateway’ development at the Anzac Parade/Todman Avenue intersection with a focus on retail services created by the light rail services. Furthermore, the proposal argues that the subject site could create a ‘marker’ adjacent to the proposed Todman Light Rail Station.

 

The subject Planning Proposal is considered excessive for the site and would create significant negative impact on urban amenity within the entire neighbourhood. It needs to be noted that recently the Council and subsequently the JRPP rejected two similar Planning Proposal applications for sites at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington and 395, 397-397A Anzac Parade (Triangle Site), Kingsford.

 

The Planning Proposal which seeks to increase the permissible building height to 85m metres and introduce the allowable FSR to 7:1 for the land at 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington is therefore not supported on the basis that:

 

·       A holistic approach rather than a spot rezoning in an ad hoc manner for this significant corridor is considered to be the best, most efficient and most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site and the remainder of the Town Centre;

 

·       Strategic planning work based on research and modeling is currently being undertaken by Council to understand key drivers for growth for housing, employment and social infrastructure to meet future needs of the community and guide future planning decisions. Council is undertaking this work in conjunction with University of NSW City Futures Centre and with an International Urban Design Competition;

 

·       Any changes to planning controls need to be carried out comprehensively and holistically to ensure that benefits to the community associated with the additional housing, outweighs adverse community impacts;

 

·       A comprehensive approach is needed to better understand the infrastructure requirements, both physical and social, in particular transport, traffic and schools in conjunction with the proposed light rail services which should include demand from suburbs further south;

 

·      The subject Planning Proposal proposing to uplift the corner of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue in form of a 85m tower in this ad hoc manner without considering the surrounding height of buildings, within the Kensington Town Centre and adjoining residential areas, would create an inconsistency within the neighbourhood streetscape;

·      This site because of its prominent location needs to be comprehensively considered within the context of the entire Town Centre to ensure that the best urban design outcomes;

 

·      The subject site directly adjoins R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land to the west and the proposed redevelopment is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the amenity within the R3 zoned properties;

 

·      The intended increase in the permissible building height from 12m, 21m and 25 metres to 85 metres, is ad hoc and more than three times of what is allowable will create a building which is physically and architecturally out of character within the Anzac Parade corridor which is currently subject of a comprehensive strategic approach.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)           Not support the Planning Proposal submitted by JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd on behalf of developer TOGA Kensington Pty Ltd to amend Randwick LEP 2012 to increase the Height of Buildings Map from 12m, 21m, and 25m to 85m and introduce a 7:1 ratio on the FSR Map on the land located at 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington.

 

b)          Advise the applicant of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Council resolution of 23 February 2016 relating to Kingsford and Kensington Town Centre Review

 

 

 

 


Council resolution of 23 February 2016 relating to Kingsford and Kensington Town Centre Review

Attachment 1

 

 

 

For Action

 

Ordinary Council

23/02/2016

 

TO: Director City Planning (Sima Truuvert)

 

 

Subject:

Status Report on Kingsford & Kensington Town Centre Review - Issues Paper

Target Date:

8/03/2016

Notes:

Council resolution forwarded to Sima Truuvert to reassign to actioning officer.

Document No.:

D02570059

Report Type:

Report

Item Number:

CP5/16

                                                                                                                                                    

RESOLUTION: (Matson/Stavrinos) that:

 

a)   Council adopts the following Strategic Planning Mission for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres:

 

“That Council embraces the bold vision that the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres will become the integrated administrative and local government centre for Randwick City Council or its successor and that they should be made worthy for that purpose by becoming  subject to the world’s most cutting edge planning and development standards in terms of:

 

·      administrative capacity;

·      beautiful, visionary and functional architecture based on ecological sustainability and living building concepts;

·      striking street visages open to urban forest and large scale green wall possibilities;

·      balanced commercial opportunity;

·      open space enhancement;

·      a sense of place, identity, history and social cohesion;

·      mobility;

·      an Innovation Centre;

·      infrastructure, educational and entertainment provision; and

·      overall liveability.

 

b)   Council amend the proposed Strategic Planning work program for the preparation of an Issues Paper and Planning Strategy for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review by incorporating an international competition to develop the Strategic Planning Mission for the two centres with prize money of $300,000.00.

c)   Council endorse the Strategic Planning work program for the preparation of the amended Issues Paper and Planning Strategy for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review.

d)   in addition to the specific competition prize money, Council approve the allocation of an additional $236,500.00 in funds to complete the project in the current 2015-16 budget.

e)   approve the allocation of $100,000.00 in the 2016-17 budget to finalise this project.

f)    Council advise the Department of Planning and Environment of its strategic planning process and timetable and seek confirmation that this process adequately addresses strategic issues and expectations for the precinct.  

 

MOTION: (Matson/Stavrinos) CARRIED – SEE RESOLUTION.

 

The DIVISION was taken and the names of the Councillors voting FOR and AGAINST were as follows:

 

FOR

AGAINST

Councillor Andrews

Councillor Belleli

Councillor D'Souza

Councillor Bowen

Councillor Matson

Councillor Moore

Councillor Nash

Councillor Neilson

Councillor Roberts

 

Councillor Seng

 

Councillor Shurey

 

Councillor Smith

 

Councillor Stavrinos

 

Total (9)

Total (4)

 

AMENDMENT: (Neilson/Moore) that Council:

 

a)     endorse the Strategic Planning work program for the preparation of an Issues Paper and Planning Strategy for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review;

 

b)     approve the allocation of $236,500.00 in funds to complete the project in the current 2015-16 budget;

 

c)     approve the allocation of $100,000.00 in the 2016-17 budget to finalise this project; and

 

d)     advise the Department of Planning and Environment of its strategic planning process and timetable and seek confirmation that this process adequately addresses strategic issues and expectations for the precinct. LOST.

 

The DIVISION was taken and the names of the Councillors voting FOR and AGAINST were as follows:

 

FOR

AGAINST

Councillor Belleli

Councillor Andrews

Councillor Bowen

Councillor D'Souza

Councillor Moore

Councillor Matson

Councillor Neilson

Councillor Nash

 

Councillor Roberts

 

Councillor Seng

 

Councillor Shurey

 

Councillor Smith

 

Councillor Stavrinos

Total (4)

Total (9)

 

 

 Open Item in Minutes                                                                                                                 

This action sheet has been automatically been produced by Administrative Services using InfoCouncil, the agenda and minutes database. 

 

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP15/16

 

Subject:                  Planning Proposal – 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington

Folder No:               F2015/00419

Author:                    Richard Hulajko, Strategic Planning Consultant     

 

Introduction

A Planning Proposal application submitted by JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd on behalf of developer TOGA Addison Pty Ltd is seeking support to amend Randwick LEP 2012 for land at 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington (Figure 1). This report assesses the merits of a Planning Proposal (spot rezoning) application, which is seeking Council’s support to proceed to the next stage (Gateway Determination) of the Planning Proposal process for the subject site. The proponent has also submitted a second Planning Proposal for land at 111-125 Anzac Parade and 112 Todman Avenue, Kensington which is also being reported in this Business Paper as a separate report.

 

The subject Planning Proposal seeks an amendment to Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP) 2012 to increase the permissible height controls to 83m, to erect two towers of 24 and 18 storeys, and introduce a FSR of 7:1 for the subject land. The subject site currently has a height limit of 25m and no FSR applies to the land as it is subject to building envelope controls in Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013.

 

The subject site is not considered to be an appropriate location to incorporate a 24 and 18 storey tower buildings forming the focal point of the Town Centre, especially given its excessive bulk and scale and likely overshadowing impacts on the immediately surrounding buildings (both existing and future development).

 

The subject Planning Proposal as a spot rezoning is not considered as the most efficient or most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site and the remainder of the Kensington Town Centre. A comprehensive Town Centre study as part of a broader strategic approach is more appropriate to enable consideration of a wide range of factors influencing the Town Centre. As such the Planning Proposal will undermine Council’s strategic planning process and future character of the Kensington Town Centre.

 

The subject Planning Proposal is considered excessive for the site and would create significant negative impact on urban amenity within the entire neighbourhood. It needs to be noted that recently Council and subsequently JRPP rejected two similar Planning Proposal applications for sites at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington and 395, 397-397A Anzac Parade (Triangle Site), Kingsford.

 

It is therefore recommended that the request to amend Height of Buildings from 25m to 83m and introduce FSR of 7:1 under the RLEP 2012 for the site located at 137-151 Anzac Parade not be supported.

 

Background

On 7 December 2015, a pre lodgement meeting was held between the proponent and Council’s officers regarding the subject Planning Proposal located at the 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington. The proponent presented a design concept for 24 storey south and 18 storey north towers for the subject site, being amalgamation of 7 lots containing currently variety of buildings (Figure 1). The justification for the concept proposal was the need for additional housing and revitalising of commercial floor space close to public transport.

 

Council’s officers advised that a broad strategic review of both Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres was currently underway and a comprehensive analysis of opportunities and needs is being carried out to inform a planning strategy. Council officers also advised that the height and FSR could not be justified or supported in this context.

 

Outcomes of Similar Recent Planning Proposals

In the case of two recent similar Planning Proposal applications for sites at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington and 395, 397-397A Anzac Parade (Triangle Site), Kingsford the Council resolved to refuse them on the basis that adequate justification had not been provided to warrant changes to the RLEP 2012 height and FSR controls that apply to the wider Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres. These controls had recently been established under the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013 provisions. Furthermore, concerns were raised that the proposed redevelopment resulting from the requested changes to the planning controls would be out of scale and bare little relationship to the surrounding residential context and existing character of the Centre.

 

Subsequently the JRPP also resolved that while the Anzac Parade Corridor may be suitable for increased density due to proposed upgrading of public transport capacity in the future, that this should be done in the context of a comprehensive approach of wider issues rather than be restricted to the context of one site. In considering these Planning Proposals, the JRPP was unanimous in the view that the building height and FSR of these Planning Proposals have not been justified either by spare public transport capacity or by urban design considerations.

 

Subject Site

The subject site at 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington is located mid-block between Todman Avenue and Addison Street along Anzac Parade at the southern end of Kensington Town Centre. The site is 3,937m² in area, has street frontage of approximately 85m to Anzac Parade and depth of about 46m. The site has no access to any secondary street.

 

Table 1 – Current components and land use of the subject site

 

Address

Lot No

Area

Current Land Use

137 Anzac Parade

Lot 10 Sec 3 in DP3897

639m²

4 storey flat building

139 Anzac Parade

Lot 1 in D554563

356m²

Single storey dwelling

141 Anzac Parade

Lot 2 in DP554563

298m²

Singe storey dwelling

143 Anzac Parade

Lot B in DP340818

357m²

Bicycle shop/residence

145 Anzac Parade

Lot C in DP100646

504m²

Sport shop/residence

145A Anzac Parade

Lot D in DP100646

384m²

Baby shop and office

147-151 Anzac Parade

SP48068 & SP81108

1384m²

5 storey motel building

 

The consolidated allotments of the site contain a variety of building types ranging from single storey dwelling houses to a five storey motel building (The Addison Motel). The site is located on land in close vicinity to the proposed light rail station at Todman Avenue that will be some 100m away.

 

Description of surrounding area

The site lies approximately 7 km southeast of the Sydney CBD and about 5 km northeast from Sydney Airport. The site is in close proximity to major open space and institutional sites, including Moore Park and Centennial Park to its north, Randwick Racecourse to the east, and UNSW and the Randwick Hospitals Campus to the southeast.

 

The site is surrounded by a mix of building types, including commercial premises, semi-detached dwelling houses, old style walk-up flats and a hotel. Immediately to the north at 127-135 Anzac Parade is a ‘7 Eleven’ Service Station on the corner of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue. Further north on the other side of Todman Avenue is four double storey buildings of various styles and then recently completed 7 storey mixed use building at 105-109 Anzac Parade containing commercial premises on ground floor and residential apartments above.

 

Immediately south at 153-157 Anzac Parade is three storey older style flat building and a single story dwelling house. Recently (December 2015) Council approved a DA for demolition of existing structures on this site and construction of part 3 storey, part 7 storey mixed use development comprising of ground floor retail premises and residential apartments on upper levels, and two level basement car park. This redevelopment is not commenced yet.

 

Figure 1 - Location of Subject Site

 

 

Further south on the other side of Addison Street is a row of three storey flat buildings. Further south on the corner of Anzac Parade and Lorne Avenue is a six storey modern mixed use building containing commercial use on ground floor and residential apartments above (Uni Lodge).

 

Adjoining the site to the west is a mixture of single storey dwelling houses and double storey residential units type of buildings fronting Villiers Street. On the eastern side of Anzac Parade opposite the subject site is a mixture of single storey commercial buildings and three storey 1970’s residential flat buildings.

 

The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks to amend the Randwick LEP 2012 to increase the maximum building height under the Randwick DCP 2012 from 25m to 83m, to accommodate an indicative development of two towers of 18 and 24 storey buildings containing mixed use of retailing on the ground floor and residential apartments on upper levels. The Planning Proposal also seeks to introduce an FSR of 7:1 for the site.

 

Table 2 - Summary of proposed changes

 

Component

Current

Proposed

Zone

B2 Local Centre

No change

Height of Buildings

25m

83m

Floor Space Ratio

Not applicable - under the RLEP’s 2012 FSR Map

7:1

 

This planning proposal application is accompanied by a number of reports being:

 

a.  Concept Design Report prepared by Kannfinch,

b.  Anzac Parade Corridor Analysis prepared by SJB Architects,

c.   Heritage Statement prepared by OCP Architects,

d.  Contamination Due Diligence Assessment prepared by Douglas Partners,

e.  Hazardous Materials Report prepared by Douglas Partners,

f.   Traffic Report prepared by GTA Consultants,

g.  Proposed LEP Height and FSR Maps prepared by JBA, and

h.  Aeronautical Safety Statement prepared by The Ambidji Group Pty Ltd.

 

The reports address the possible opportunity for a mixed use redevelopment to take advantage of the improved access afforded by the proposed Todman Avenue Station of the South East Light Rail project, which is proposed in close vicinity. The reports also address the consistency of the proposal within State and local planning objectives and directions as well as the public benefits. However, it needs to be noted that the proposed towers for the site would exceed more than 3 times the permissible building height.

 

Relevant Planning Controls

Randwick LEP 2012

The land to which this Planning Proposal applies is zoned B2 Local Centre under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012. Residential flat buildings and shop top housing are permissible uses among other uses within this zone with Council’s consent under RLEP 2012.

 

The maximum height control for the site is 25m, which is the predominant height limit for the Town Centre. The Kensington Town Centre is subject to building envelope controls and there is no FSR control applying to the subject site. The Town Centre is surrounded by R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land (Figure 2) for which the height control is 12m (Figure 3).

 

The site does not contain any heritage items. However, there are large heritage conservation areas to the north, west and east of the site, being the North Randwick, West Kensington and Racecourse conservation areas. Also, there are several locally listed heritage items in the RLEP 2012 within close vicinity, but not directly adjoining the subject site.

 


 

Figure 2 – Current Zoning

 

 

 

Figure 3 – Current Height of Building Limit

 

 

Randwick DCP 2013

The subject land is located within “Block 08 – Addison Street to Todman Avenue” of the Randwick DCP Chapter D1 Kensington Centre.

 

The DCP notes the built form at the corner of Anzac Parade and Addison Street is inconsistent with overall objective for the Town Centre. This corner currently features a very small Council owned car park and adjacent landscaped area at the street edge. This may require realignment of the footpath in order to achieve a continuous built form since Anzac Parade has a bend in this section.

 

The DCP controls for the prominent corner at Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue currently occupied by the 7 Eleven Service Station, is for either a 26m Building Zone with amalgamation of the corner site of Todman Avenue/Villiers Street or otherwise a 22m building Zone applies (Figure 4).

 

Figure 4 – DCP’s Proposed Layout and Height of Buildings

 

This block (08) consists of a 5 storey motel located at 147-151 Anzac Parade, which currently dominates the streetscape with highly visible features inconsistent with the RDCP 2013 design controls. Furthermore, there is a large older strata title residential flat building located at 137 Anzac Parade, which is also inconsistent with the DCP’s anticipated built form outcome as it is out of character for the future built form.

 

The key building envelope controls for Block 08 set out in the DCP are as follows:

 

·      Buildings located at 147-151 (motel) and at 137 (strata title flat) Anzac Parade are inconsistent with the DCP’s proposed built form.

·      Street wall height of 4 storeys to Anzac Parade to a depth of 4m;

·      6 storeys to the main part of the building, with 5 storey to the rear facing development of R3 Medium Density Residential and Todman Avenue,

·      Continuous street frontage awnings to Anzac Parade, Todman Avenue and partly to Addison Street, and

·      Continuous colonnades are recommended to the rear.

·      Rear carriageway adjoining premises fronting Villers Street.

 

The existing controls for the Town Centre (as provided in DCP 2013, Chapter D1) were established following a major planning/design review in 2001/02 with extensive community consultation which determined the appropriate architectural character of the Town Centre, articulation requirements and building heights. Specific quality design outcomes contained in the DCP aim to improve the function of the Town Centre, its image and amenity (Figure 5). The DCP encourages site amalgamation through bonuses in the building envelopes.

 

Figure 5 – DCP’s Proposed Development Cross Section East-West Looking North

 

 

The DCP controls have generally been consistently applied across the Town Centre and this allows the desired objectives of taller buildings along the main road transitioning to lower scale adjoining residential to be achieved. The existing controls were established in order to respond to the specific context of the Town Centre highlighting the need for well-proportioned buildings, maintaining desired view corridors, managing overshadowing impacts, access to sunlight and privacy. These controls provide a balance between the need to ensure that the Town Centre provides capacity for mixed use development whilst minimising adverse impacts.

 

The level of development activity within the Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres has been steady over recent years. There have been a number of sites amalgamated to provide for mixed residential and ground floor business uses as well as student housing in line with existing planning controls. Recent developments located at 105-109 Anzac Parade and 159-171 Anzac Parade generally complies with the maximum 25m height control in Council’s LEP.

 

Metropolitan Plan for Sydney

Released in 2014, the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney A Plan for Growing Sydney is a 20 year strategic plan that sets the NSW Government’s vision for housing and economic growth, the environment and infrastructure. District plans (or sub-regional plans) will guide the delivery of the Metropolitan Plan across the six new regions or districts to provide an additional 664,000 homes and 689,000 jobs by 2031.

 

The district plans (sub-regional) plans are to address; the distribution of housing and employment at the LGA level and the infrastructure required to support housing and employment growth within the region. The Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) is to release dwelling and employment targets for each district in the near future. The recently announced Greater Sydney Commission (GSC) will take on responsibilities of the JRPP for future Planning Proposals and Gateway Determinations. However, the timing and transition period for this to occur is yet to be announced by the Government.

 

Town Centres Review

To better understand the specific needs of the community respond to the District Planning process, identify gaps and opportunities, Council is working in partnership with the University of NSW City Future Centres on the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres reviews.

 

On 23 February 2016 Council considered a separate report on the scope, timeframe, methodology and funding for this review. This work will be informed by technical studies with an open and transparent community engagement process that considers and examines matters such as:

 

·          Local and regional planning context,

·          Land use characteristics and future trends (including shopper and business surveys),

·          Social infrastructure,

·          Connectivity and accessibility to infrastructure,

·          Feasibility analysis,

·          Precinct wide transport and parking strategy,

·          public domain landscape and urban design

·          Economic analysis.

 

In considering this report Council resolved:

 

·      To endorse the strategic planning work program for both centres,

·      To approve financial resources for an international competition to develop the vision for both centres (refer to resolution attached),

·      To review both centres in order to address issues such as; functional architectural outcome, urban green wall possibilities, balanced commercial opportunity and identify a sense of place.

 

The issue paper for both Town Centres review is included (as a separate report) in this Business paper, together with a project timeframe and communication strategy.

 

Analysis and Justification

Merits of the Planning Proposal

The request for this Planning Proposal is to alter the current height limit control of 25m under the Randwick LEP 2012 in order to permit development of two towers at a height of up-to 83m and introduce an FSR of 7:1 for the site. The proposal is to maintain the B2 Local Centre zone which applies to the site and the remainder of the Kensington Town Centre.

 

The Planning Proposal suggests that the intended development can be identified as the ‘heart/marker’ of the Anzac Parade corridor. It claims that building heights in this location could be as tall as 20+ storeys directly fronting Anzac Parade. The mixed use redevelopment (as proposed) would comprise retail at ground level and residential apartments on the upper levels.

 

In support of the Planning Proposal, the applicant has provided a number studies such as Concept Design Report, Anzac Parade Corridor Analysis, Heritage Statement, Hazardous Materials Report, Traffic Report and an Aeronautical Safety Statement. These reports provide justification for increased building height/dwelling density on the site in the context of the wider Kensington Town Centre. However, the Planning Proposal states that it is not based on any strategic study or report, but has been prepared in response to the strategic significance of the site and location in the vicinity of land adjacent to the proposed light rail station that will be located some 100m away.

 

Figure 6 - Artist impression of the Planning Proposal scenario as two towers option

 

 

The artist impression contained in the Planning Proposal (Figures 6 & 7) is an inaccurate representation of the overall scale and bulk of the development given the angle at which it is shown and the incorporation of buildings which are not constructed, proposed or permissible.

 

Furthermore, the Proposal states that redevelopment would provide for additional density and housing diversity to the area, and the residential component would provide valuable housing in a well serviced location. It also states that additional public benefit will be provided by the renewed retail component, which could contribute to employment and commerce in the area by providing additional commercial space for local businesses.

 

Figure 7 - Architects impression of indicative massing for the proposed building envelope and adjoining redevelopment

 

 

 

Consideration of applicant’s case

It is considered that the Planning Proposal as a spot rezoning is not the most efficient or most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site and the remainder of the Town Centre. As stated earlier, Council’s comprehensive Town Centre review is more appropriate to enable consideration of a wide range of factors influencing the Town Centre and this will be informed by a sound evidence base (technical and research studies) and a robust community engagement strategy.

 

Furthermore, the Planning Proposal (as intended) to substantially increase the height and density represents an ad hoc approach to planning in this strategically important corridor. “Costs” to the community are likely to arise if the Planning Proposal proceeds given excessive bulk and scale of the proposed redevelopment, increased demand for public open space and services, adverse impacts in the form of streetscape inconsistency and potential overshadowing on adjoining properties.

 

It is also noted that there is a need for affordable and key worker housing in this location. However, the Planning Proposal does not address affordable housing issue, which is one of the aims of RLEP 2012. Housing needs including housing diversity will be addressed in Council’s planning strategy for Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres (refer to the Issues Paper included as a separate report in this Business paper).

 

In relation to the Randwick Urban Activation Precinct (UAP), this has now been shelved and no UAPs currently exist. It should be noted that the State Government’s proposed planning modifications were presented in community forums/working groups in 2013 and not publically exhibited for broad community feedback. Council has commenced work to identify a strategic vision for the Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres within the context of the State Government Metropolitan Plan and consultation with the community. A Planning Proposal such as this and other ad hoc approach requests should not proceed outside of this strategic context.

 

It is recognised that Kensington Town Centre’s strategic location close to the Sydney CBD, access to public transport and institutions offers opportunities for continued mixed-use development. Council’s planning and policy approach in terms of current and future housing needs is to focus the majority of new dwellings in and around town centres (within walking distance to public transport, services, jobs and shops). This approach provides for an efficient use of existing services and infrastructure whilst maintaining the established character of existing low-scale residential neighbourhoods.

 

However, it is considered that the proposed two towers of up-to 83m high (18 & 24 storeys) will create an inconsistent streetscape element and potential adverse urban design outcomes. The subject site is not considered to be an appropriate location to incorporate a 24 and 18 storeys tower buildings forming the focal point of the Town Centre, especially given its excessive bulk and scale and likely overshadowing impacts on the immediately surrounding buildings (both existing and future development). While recognising that this might be one potential option for the site, it is however difficult to justify whether this is the best urban design outcome without exploring other options as part of a holistic review within the broader Town Centre.

 

Furthermore, this Planning Proposal, as intended, compromises redevelopment of both adjacent corners; being Anzac Parade/Todman Avenue and Anzac Parade/Addison Street. The proposed indicative redevelopment of two tower buildings (if the Planning Proposal be supported) has not included sufficient interface treatments in terms of height transitions towards medium density residential development to the west, existing development and recently approved mixed use (retail/residential) redevelopment the north face of Addison Street as well as the southern side of Todman Avenue.

 

Any proposed changes along Anzac Parade in terms of zoning, permissibility of land uses or building height, needs to be considered comprehensively in terms of their potential amenity impacts, building form outcomes, sustainability, and traffic and parking impacts. Significantly higher density development and height of buildings, in this location will create significant adverse impacts not only on adjoining lower scale residences to the west but on the entire neighbourhood.

 

Overshadowing

Mid-winter shadow and 23 March/23 September equinox diagrams attached to the proponent’s urban design report, indicate that the development which eventuates from this Planning proposal will cause significant overshadowing on the northern façade of Addison Street and western façade of Anzac Parade. These sites are potential future redevelopment sites. Furthermore, the southern façade building of Addison Street, of recently approved redevelopment, will also be significantly overshadowed.

 

The proposed towers of up-to 83m would create significant overshadowing on its western and eastern neighbours. In the morning (9 am) and afternoon (3 pm) shadow impacts would extend for approximately 280m over this densely built-up neighbourhood including a number of residences and commercial facilities.

 

Traffic and Parking

The proponent’s Traffic Report states that Anzac Parade is a Classified Road with a four lane carriageway, two lanes in each direction with a median strip and footpath on each site. It carries approximately 30,000 vehicles per day. The median strip is designated to accommodate the proposed Light Rail Corridor connecting the City with Kingsford. Todman Avenue is classified as a Regional Road carrying about 17,000 vehicles per day. The intersection of Anzac Parade and Todman Avenue currently experiences queuing and delay during both the AM and PM peak periods.

 

On street parking is permitted on both sides of Todman Avenue and is subject to 2P time restrictions on weekdays. Street parking along Anzac Parade is limited to 30 minute restriction outside of the AM and PM bus lane time periods. There is a small Council owned car park at the corner of Anzac Parade and Addison Street. Future construction of light rail will affect car parking along Anzac Parade. During the construction period no parking will be available. After the light rail project is operational, there will be some limited car parking spaces available.

 

Increased densities which eventuate from the Planning Proposal will exacerbate the impacts not only on traffic and parking along Anzac Parade and local streets, but also will create safety hazard arising from more congested streets and intersections. Council’s Town Centres Review project will investigate future public transport capacity and access to and within the Town Centres. It is considered that a holistic approach to future public transport needs of the precinct is necessary to ensure urban renewal is integrated with transport infrastructure planning.

 

The subject site occupies the middle part of the block 08 (RDCP 2013) and subsequently has no access to any side street (Figure 1), therefore vehicle access is proposed to and from Anzac Parade. This is inconsistent with clause 101(2a) of State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (Infrastructure) 2007 that requires all vehicle access to the land to be provided by a road other than the Classified Road, where practicable.

 

Technical studies

If the Planning Proposal were to proceed to the next stage of the Planning Proposal process a comprehensive traffic, parking and transport report as well as comprehensive flooding study would be required to consider the proposal in relation to the proposed light rail along Anzac Parade.

 

Additional studies may be specified by the Department of Planning and Environment as part of the Gateway Determination should the Planning Proposal proceed.

 

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship to the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome

4

Excellence in urban design and development.

Directions

4a:

Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

4b:

New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

Outcome

8:

A strong local economy.

Directions

8c:

Economic growth and development that strengthens our hospital and university precinct.

Outcome

9:

Integrated and accessible Transport.

Directions

9a:

A network of safe and convenient walking paths and cycleways linking major land uses and recreation opportunities.

 

9b:

The community is informed, educated and encouraged to use sustainable transport.

 

9d:

Residential amenity is protected by appropriate traffic Management.

 

9e:

Parking is managed to balance convenience against reduced car reliance.

 

Financial Impact Statement

The applicable fee for the preliminary assessment of the proposal was paid by the applicant as per Council’s Fees and Charges Policy ($12,416) and further fees will be required should the Planning Proposal progress to the next stage (to cover public consultation costs and further assessment). Assessment of the Planning Proposal has been undertaken on behalf of Council by an in-house planning consultant funded by the applicant’s lodgement fees.

 

Conclusion

The Planning Proposal submitted to Council for the land at 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington is seeking Council’s support to commence a planning process for an amendment to Randwick LEP 2012. The Planning Proposal is based on a residential and urban design analysis prepared by the applicant to support an increase in permissible building height on the land from 25m (under current LEP 2012) to 83m and to apply an FSR of 7:1.

 

The Proposal justifies the increase in building height for the subject land since it could be identified as the ‘heart/marker’ of the Anzac Parade corridor with a focus on retail services and additional residential density with good access to public transport.

 

The subject Planning Proposal is considered excessive for the site and would create significant negative impact on urban amenity within the entire neighbourhood. It needs to be noted that recently Council and subsequently the JRPP rejected two similar Planning Proposal applications for sites at 84-108 Anzac Parade, Kensington and 395, 397-397A Anzac Parade (Triangle Site), Kingsford. These were on the basis of excessive bulk and scale and adverse urban design outcome for Anzac Parade.

 

The Planning Proposal to rezone land at 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington to increase the permissible height controls from 25m to 83 metres and introduce a FSR to 7:1 is therefore not supported on the basis that:

 

·      A holistic approach, rather than an ad hoc Planning Proposal, for this significant corridor is the best, most efficient and most effective means of achieving a review of the planning controls that currently apply to the site;

 

·      Strategic planning work based on research and modeling is currently being undertaken by Council to understand key drivers for growth for housing, employment and social infrastructure to meet future needs of the community and guide future planning decisions. Council is undertaking this work in conjunction with University of NSW City Futures Centre and with an International Urban Design Competition;

 

·      Any changes to planning controls needs to be carried out comprehensively and holistically to ensure that benefits to the community associated with the additional housing, outweighs adverse community impacts;

 

·      A comprehensive approach is needed to better understand the infrastructure requirements, both physical and social, in particular transport, traffic and schools in conjunction with the proposed light rail services which should include demand from suburbs further south;

 

·      The subject Planning Proposal is intending to uplift the middle section of Block 08 in the form of two (24 and 18 storeys) of up-to 83m high towers in this ad hoc manner without proper consideration for the surrounding (lower height) of buildings, within the Kensington Town Centre and adjoining residential areas. This would create an inconsistency within the neighbourhood streetscape;

 

·      This site because of its prominent location needs to be comprehensively considered within the context of the entire Town Centre to ensure that the best urban design outcomes;

 

·      The subject site directly adjoins R3 Medium Density Residential zoned land to the west. The proposed redevelopment is likely to have significant adverse impacts on the amenity within the R3 zoned properties;

 

·      The intended increase in the permissible height limit from 25 metres to 83 metres, which is ad hoc and more than three times allowable, will create buildings which are physically and architecturally out of character within the Anzac Parade corridor;

 

·      The Planning Proposal, compromises redevelopment of both adjacent corners within the block; (being Anzac Parade/Todman Avenue and Anzac Parade/Addison Street) as it would result in excessively high building form. It is also constrained by providing vehicular access from Anzac Parade.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council:

 

a)     Not support the Planning Proposal submitted by JBA Urban Planning Consultants Pty Ltd on behalf of developer TOGA Addison Pty Ltd to amend Randwick LEP 2012 to increase the Height of Buildings Map from 25m to 83m and introduce a 7:1 ratio on the FSR Map on the land located at 137-151 Anzac Parade, Kensington.

 

b)    Advise the applicant of Council’s decision.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Council resolution of 23 February 2016 relating to Kingsford and Kensington Town Centre Review

 

 

 

 


Council resolution of 23 February 2016 relating to Kingsford and Kensington Town Centre Review

Attachment 1

 

 

 

For Action

 

Ordinary Council

23/02/2016

 

TO: Director City Planning (Sima Truuvert)

 

 

Subject:

Status Report on Kingsford & Kensington Town Centre Review - Issues Paper

Target Date:

8/03/2016

Notes:

Council resolution forwarded to Sima Truuvert to reassign to actioning officer.

Document No.:

D02570059

Report Type:

Report

Item Number:

CP5/16

 

RESOLUTION: (Matson/Stavrinos) that:

 

a)   Council adopts the following Strategic Planning Mission for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres:

 

“That Council embraces the bold vision that the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres will become the integrated administrative and local government centre for Randwick City Council or its successor and that they should be made worthy for that purpose by becoming  subject to the world’s most cutting edge planning and development standards in terms of:

 

·      administrative capacity;

·      beautiful, visionary and functional architecture based on ecological sustainability and living building concepts;

·      striking street visages open to urban forest and large scale green wall possibilities;

·      balanced commercial opportunity;

·      open space enhancement;

·      a sense of place, identity, history and social cohesion;

·      mobility;

·      an Innovation Centre;

·      infrastructure, educational and entertainment provision; and

·      overall liveability.

 

b)   Council amend the proposed Strategic Planning work program for the preparation of an Issues Paper and Planning Strategy for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review by incorporating an international competition to develop the Strategic Planning Mission for the two centres with prize money of $300,000.00.

c)   Council endorse the Strategic Planning work program for the preparation of the amended Issues Paper and Planning Strategy for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review.

d)   in addition to the specific competition prize money, Council approve the allocation of an additional $236,500.00 in funds to complete the project in the current 2015-16 budget.

e)   approve the allocation of $100,000.00 in the 2016-17 budget to finalise this project.

f)    Council advise the Department of Planning and Environment of its strategic planning process and timetable and seek confirmation that this process adequately addresses strategic issues and expectations for the precinct.  

 

MOTION: (Matson/Stavrinos) CARRIED – SEE RESOLUTION.

 

The DIVISION was taken and the names of the Councillors voting FOR and AGAINST were as follows:

 

FOR

AGAINST

Councillor Andrews

Councillor Belleli

Councillor D'Souza

Councillor Bowen

Councillor Matson

Councillor Moore

Councillor Nash

Councillor Neilson

Councillor Roberts

 

Councillor Seng

 

Councillor Shurey

 

Councillor Smith

 

Councillor Stavrinos

 

Total (9)

Total (4)

 

AMENDMENT: (Neilson/Moore) that Council:

 

a)     endorse the Strategic Planning work program for the preparation of an Issues Paper and Planning Strategy for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review;

 

b)     approve the allocation of $236,500.00 in funds to complete the project in the current 2015-16 budget;

 

c)     approve the allocation of $100,000.00 in the 2016-17 budget to finalise this project; and

 

d)     advise the Department of Planning and Environment of its strategic planning process and timetable and seek confirmation that this process adequately addresses strategic issues and expectations for the precinct. LOST.

 

The DIVISION was taken and the names of the Councillors voting FOR and AGAINST were as follows:

 

FOR

AGAINST

Councillor Belleli

Councillor Andrews

Councillor Bowen

Councillor D'Souza

Councillor Moore

Councillor Matson

Councillor Neilson

Councillor Nash

 

Councillor Roberts

 

Councillor Seng

 

Councillor Shurey

 

Councillor Smith

 

Councillor Stavrinos

Total (4)

Total (9)

 

 Open Item in Minutes                                                                                                                 

This action sheet has been automatically been produced by Administrative Services using InfoCouncil, the agenda and minutes database. 

 

 

 

 

 



Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP16/16

 

Subject:                  Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy & Guidelines

Folder No:               F2004/06770

Author:                    Roman Wereszczynski, Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services        

 

Introduction

 

Council adopted its original Enforcement Policy on 24 April 2007, which aims to satisfy Council’s obligations under section 8 of the Local Government Act 1993, which relevantly states:

 

8   The council’s charter

(1) A council has the following charter:

•   to ensure that, in the exercise of its regulatory functions, it acts consistently and without bias, particularly where an activity of the council is affected…”

 

Council’s Enforcement Policy aims to fulfill these obligations and to ensure that its regulatory activities are carried out in a professional, consistent and fair manner.

 

The purpose of this Report is to inform the Council that the Enforcement Policy has been reviewed and updated, to provide a greater level of information about Council’s enforcement activities, considerations and regulatory actions.  The original and amended Policy continues to be principally based upon the Enforcement guidelines for councils published by the NSW Ombudsman.

 

Background

 

A report regarding the draft amended Enforcement Policy was initially considered at Council’s meeting held on 23 September 2014 and it was resolved to defer the matter pending a Councillor Briefing.  A number of further amendments and improvements have also been made to the draft policy since that time, following the release of updated Enforcement Guidelines issues by the NSW Ombudsman in December 2015.

 

A summary of the amended Policy was presented to the Councillor’s and Senior Management by the Manager Health, Building & Regulatory Services at a Councillor Briefing held on 1 March 2016.

 

Issues

 

The overarching objects of the Enforcement Policy are to ensure that regulatory matters are managed in a consistent and transparent manner and that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice are observed. In addition, the Enforcement Policy acts as a ‘guideline’, that is publicly available, as to how Council conducts its regulatory functions.

 

The overarching objects and purpose of the amended Enforcement Policy & Guidelines remain unchanged by this review.  There are a number of minor but important amendments which if adopted by the Council will give greater consistency, guidance and bring greater efficacy to Council’s regulatory functions.

 

The Enforcement Policy also references a number of new or updated pieces of legislation and referenced guidelines.

 

The Proposed Amendments

 

Essentially the proposed amendments are to provide for the following:

 

·      Incorporation of additional information about Council’s enforcement activities and processes

·      Inclusion of provisions consistent with the new Ombudsman Enforcement Guidelines for Council’s 2015

·      References to the NSW State Debt Recovery ‘Review Guidelines’ and the Caution Guidelines by the NSW Attorney General

·      Reference to new or amended legislative provisions and processes

·      Reference to the use of alternative dispute resolution methods as an alternative to regulatory action

·      Provide greater clarity to Council’s regulatory options, matters for considerations and regulatory discretion

·      To provide information about certification of development and neighbour disputes.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  6 - A Liveable City.

Direction:  6c - The safety of our community is paramount and is acknowledged and supported through proactive policies, programs and strategies.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The implementation of Council’s Enforcement Policy & Guidelines can be accommodated within Council’s existing regulatory budget.

 

Conclusion

 

Council’s Enforcement Policy & Guidelines is an important document that outlines and provides guidance to how Council conducts its regulatory activities. In the past nine years, Council’s Enforcement Policy has been an invaluable document which has significantly helped to ensure Council’s regulatory activities are implemented in a professional, consistent, appropriate and accountable manner.

 

To ensure that Council’s Enforcement Policy remains relevant with the current regulatory ‘landscape’ the policy has recently been reviewed by Council officers. This review has resulted in minor but important amendments. Whilst the overarching objects of the Enforcement Policy remain unchanged the proposed amendments will give greater guidance and bring greater efficacy to Council’s regulatory functions.

 

The amended policy contains more information about Council’s regulatory functions, processes, considerations and actions, which will assist both the community and Council’s officers when undertaking their regulatory functions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That:

       

a)     Randwick City Council adopt the Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy & Guidelines 2016, and

 

b)     That the Randwick City Council Enforcement Policy & Guidelines is published on Council’s website.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

Link to the Enforcement Policy & Guidelines - DRAFT Amendment - February 2016

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP17/16

 

Subject:                  Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Issues Paper and International Design Competition

Folder No:               F2016/04019

Author:                    Stella Agagiotis, Co-ordinator, Strategic Planning      

 

Introduction

 

A Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review (the “review”) is being undertaken to ensure the planning framework for these town centres is robust, up to date and well aligned to meet future needs. The review is being supported by technical studies and an International Design Competition Process, to engage a wide range of ideas, a high level of innovation and the community engagement framework (Attachment 1) that will facilitate a broad range of ideas and feedback from the community and key stakeholders. The draft Issues Paper (Attachment 2) provides background research and analysis of the social, economic, and environmental considerations, opportunities relating to the town centres and suggests directions for change as well as funding options for future infrastructure improvements.

 

Background

On 23 February 2016, Council resolved to endorse an amended Strategic Planning work program for the preparation of an Issues Paper and Planning Strategy for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review, by incorporating an international design competition to develop a “Strategic Planning Mission” for the two centres. The Council resolution outlines the components of the Strategic Planning Mission for the town centres to develop the world’s most cutting edge planning and development standards incorporating an integrated administrative and local government centre for Eastern Sydney in terms of:

§ administrative capacity;

§ beautiful, visionary and functional architecture based on ecological sustainability and living building concepts;

§ striking street visages open to urban forest and large scale green wall possibilities;

§ balanced commercial opportunity;

§ open space enhancement;

§ a sense of place, identity, history and social cohesion;

§ mobility;

§ an Innovation Centre;

§ infrastructure, educational and entertainment provision; and

§ overall liveability.

 

Council resolved to allocate $300,000 in prize money for the competition, and approved the allocation of additional funds to complete the overall planning review.


 

Project timeframe

The project has three key stages with Stages 1 and 2 now complete and work progressing towards the preparation of the Planning Strategy - Stage 3. The key milestones for this project as outlined in the diagram below are: commencement of the community engagement process during March; appointment of the judging panel and launch of the design competition including people’s choice voting (April-October), winner announced in late September and the Planning Strategy development and exhibition November-April 2017.

 

 

 

Issues Paper

The draft Issues Paper (Attachment 1) forms stage 2 of the planning review, setting out the existing situation, including key planning and urban design issues affecting the town centres and justification for the directions and actions to be addressed through the Design Competition Process and finally formalised in a Planning Strategy which will form stage 3 of this review.

The draft Issues Paper identifies opportunities and constraints for the two town centres, which is supported by a number of studies. It incorporates an analysis of the economic needs of the Kingsford and Kensington town centres, demographic characteristics, and environmental considerations and utilises 3D mapping to present the investigations. The Issues Paper will also be supplied to competition entrants to the International Design Competition (see section below).

Engagement Framework

The Community Engagement Framework (Attachment 2) for the planning review aligns with Council’s Community Consultation Principles and Consultation Planning Guide, as an open and transparent process that engages the community and clearly communicates with all stakeholders. The Framework is titled “K2K – Your Place Your Future” to succinctly capture and explain that the focus of the work and the International Design Competition is on the Kensington to Kingsford town centres. A consultant will be appointed to manage the community engagement process.

Community engagement will occur at various stages in the review process through the International Design Competition Process, which will include community voting (people’s choice) for the preferred competition entry. Further consultation will take place during Stage 3 of the review when the Planning Strategy is placed on public exhibition.

International Design Competition

The International Design Competition for the Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres is an opportunity to bring a wide range of innovative ideas for the urban design and future sustainable growth of the town centres.

An independent external Competition Advisor will be engaged to assist with the competition brief, appointment of judges and to oversee the process. The Advisor will work with the communication consultants appointed to facilitate the engagement process.

Design Competition Process

The Competition will call for entries from registered architects and urban designers to inform Council’s Strategic Planning (Stage 3) for the two town centres.

The communication consultants will prepare material to publicise an international call for entries and assist the Judging panel in terms of the community voting for a preferred entry.

A Competition Package will be prepared for entrants to include a Design Brief and Competition Conditions, outlining the scope and parameters of the Design Competition. The Issues Paper will also be available to entrants as part of the Competition Package.

The matters and directions presented in the draft Issues Paper are expected to be addressed by the Competition entries, in keeping with the Strategic Planning Mission contained in the Council resolution. 

The Design Competition process will also be referred to the Internal Audit Committee for review and advice.

Issues Paper

The key issues and constraints outlined in the draft Issues Paper are:

·      Lot fragmentation/multiple ownership especially in Kingsford presents a challenge for lot consolidation to achieve future redevelopment

·      Lack of ground level street activation in parts of each centre detracts from the amenity of the Centres

·      Lack of a gateway to each centre

·      visual clutter caused by power poles, lighting and excessive signage in parts of the centres

·      Discontinuous awnings in parts of both centres sometimes with excessive driveway crossings to residential apartment blocks

·      Lack of street tree canopy through both centres

·      The aging stock of strata apartments which limits future development potential

·      The centres lack ‘civic hearts’ or places for gathering and civic engagement or play opportunities for different age groups

·      Both centres lack supermarkets or retail anchor tenants and this restricts their retail catchment and ability to expand their service function

·      Declining housing affordability

The key opportunities identified in the draft Issue Paper include:

·      Recognising  and enhancing the important roles of both Kensington and Kingsford town centres to support residential, employment and social infrastructure uses within the Randwick LGA

·      Improving the Anzac Parade public domain to assist in transforming the centres into inviting and vibrant places to live, shop, dine and relax.

·      Building on the dining culture within Kingsford Town Centre

·      supporting the strength of Kensington to provide local business activity during the day (non-car based shoppers) and night time trade

·      Supporting the needs of the Health and Education Precinct in terms of housing for key workers and students

·      Expanding the public domain at key nodes adjoining light rail stops and the Kingsford terminus and requiring ground level activation of streets adjoining these key nodes

·      Encouraging public art to assist in defining the character and interpreting the history of each centre in appropriate locations


Strategic Directions

Strategic directions suggested in the Paper are categorised in accordance with the Randwick City Council Themes of ‘A sense of community’, Places for People’, ‘A prospering City’ and ‘Moving Around.  A summary of the key strategic directions include:

·      Build on the character of both Centres:  In relation to Kingsford strengthen the food culture, night time economy as well as local/retail/ business and community services for the community including UNSW students and staff.  In relation to Kensington build on the vibrancy and convenience retail/service functions and ground level activation to create a sustainable and welcoming centre.

·      Continue to recognise the history of the Town Centres in the development of Randwick City

·      Update the local planning framework to addresses the long term needs of both Centre in consultation with the community informed by the ideas generated by the International Design Competition.

·      Analyse the future capacity of the public transport system to cater for future growth

·      Planning for growth and change  within the centres to be based on best practice sustainability principles to adequately addresses water, waste, recycling and reuse, energy reduction, stormwater management and protection of groundwater

·      Investigate new opportunities for greening the town centres including green walls, urban forests and water sensitive urban design

·      Define locations and opportunity sites for development  and determine appropriate scale and character of these sites in the context of adjoining urban scale

·      Encourage world-class urban design and architecture

·      Consider the creation of public plazas/spaces at appropriate locations

·      Investigate concepts for mixed use development with flexible floor spaces incorporating civic, community and commercial uses and other appropriate uses at the Key sites in Kingsford at Rainbow Street/Anzac Pde and Bunnerong Road/Anzac Pde as well as other appropriate locations in both Centres.  Such development should demonstrate principles of sustainability and design excellence.

·      Create new public domain opportunities for laneway development within both centres

·      Consider funding options/planning mechanisms to provide future infrastructure improvements such as public plazas and street upgrades in the town centres

Financial impact statement

 

On 23 February 2016, Council approved the allocation of $236,500 to complete the review project including technical studies and community consultation in the current 2015/16 budget, $100,000 in additional funding in the 2016/17 following public exhibition and prize money of $300,000 for the International Design Competition.

 

Conclusion

The Kingsford and Kensington Town Centres Review is being undertaken to ensure the planning framework for these town centres is robust, up to date and well aligned to meet future needs. A staged strategic planning work program ensures delivery of this review, commencing with background research (Stage 1), a draft Issues Paper with an Engagement Strategy (Stage 2), an International Design Competition Process and finally a Planning Strategy (Stage 3), supported by a strong evidence base of technical studies and independent oversight.

 

Recommendation

 

That:

a)  Council endorse the attached draft Issues Paper: Kingsford & Kensington Town Centre Review 2016;

 

b)  Council endorse the Community Engagement Framework

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Communication Framework

 

2.

Link to the Kensington and Kingsford Town Centres Issues Paper

 

 

 

 


Attachment A - Communication Framework

Attachment 1

 

 


 


 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP18/16

 

Subject:                  Report variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 19 November, 2015 to 10 March, 2016

Folder No:               F2008/00122

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment      

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 19 November 2015 to 10 March, 2016 – Thirteen (13) were approved during this period by Planning Committee Meeting and under Delegation.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:     New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Clause 4.6 Variation between 19 November 2015 to 10 March 2016

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 Variation between 19 November 2015 to 10 March 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

 

CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 19 NOVEMBER 2015 TO 10 MARCH 2016

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apartment/Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/Town

Post

code

Category of development

Environmental planning instrument

Zoning of land

Development standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/363/2015

2

1197025 SUBJECT TO EASE-MENT

 

4A-4B

Storey Street

MAROUBRA 

2035

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views. 

FSR is 6%  above FSR standards

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

23-Nov-15

Delegated

DA/591/2015,

18

251302

 

9

Kemmis Street

RANDWICK

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density
 Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.75:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views. 

FSR is 6%  above FSR standards

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

24-Nov-15

Delegated

DA/783/2015

7

Zone Type(s):

7

206B

Alison Road,

RANDWICK

2031

10: Mixed

RLEP 2012

B2 - Local Centre

Clause 4.3 (2)  - Building height of 12m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height excess of 9.25%  or 1.11m

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

10-Dec-15

Delegated

DA/435/2015

2, 3 & 4

 Lot 2 129398, Lot 3 DP 129398, Lot 4 DP 129398

 

36

Knox Street

CLOVELLY

2031

 3: Residential - New second occupancy

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height 10.35 metres (9.2%)

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

13-Jan-16

Delegated

DA/682/2015

D

 317633

 

227

Gale Road

MAROUBRA

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height excess of 2.11%

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

13-Jan-16

Delegated

DA/782/2015

22

 246942 SUBJ TO SE

 

16

Dawes Street

LITTLE BAY

2036

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height excess of 4.2%

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

13-Jan-16

Delegated

DA/353/2015

1672

752015

 

40

Daunt Avenue

MATRAVILLE

2036

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR is 0.12%  above FSR standards

NSW Dept of Plan-DA/451/2015, 14D Dudley Street, RANDWICK ning

27-Jan-16

Delegated

DA/750/2015

8

 36844 SUBJ TO SW PIPE LINE

 

43

Eyre Street,

CHIFLEY

2036

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR is 4.1%  above FSR standards

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

29-Jan-16

Delegated

DA/665/2015

1

 6507

1

99

Carrington Road,

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density
 Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.9:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views. 

FSR  existing: 1.2:1, proposed increase to 1.45:1, which is 28% above FSR.

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

09-Feb-16

PCM

DA/470/2015

1

311535

 

17

Meeks Sreet

KINGSFORD

2032

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density
 Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.9:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views. 

FSR is 5.7%  above FSR standards

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

12-Feb-16

Delegated

DA/43/2016

2

1050760 (BEING LOTS 1-50 IN SP 70446) SUBJECT TO VARIOUS EASEMENTS & ROW

A402

106

Brook Street

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density
 Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 12m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height excess of 34.9%. Existing building already well above Max height.

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

08-Mar-16

PCM

DA/855/2015

12 Sec 12 31637

31637

 

150

Prince Edward Street

MALABAR

2036

 2: Residential - Single new dwelling

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height excess of 7.4%

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

08-Mar-16

PCM

DA/490/2015

5

 29787

 

5

Ahearn Avenue,

SOUTH COOGEE

2034

 2: Residential - Single new dwelling

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height excess of 26.5%. Due to excavated nature of site.

NSW Dept of Plan-ning

08-Mar-16

PCM

 


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP19/16

 

Subject:                  Cultural and Community Grant Program - Recommended Allocations - March 2016

Folder No:               F2009/00182

Author:                    Warren Ambrose, Senior Social Planner      

 

Introduction

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program was endorsed by Council on 28 April 2009 and commenced in June 2009.  The Cultural and Community Grants Program provides financial support to creative arts and cultural projects that encourage community participation and vibrancy within the City of Randwick. The Grants Program, assessed twice a year in March and September, is linked to actions and strategies identified within the Council’s Cultural Plan, A Cultural Randwick City. The Cultural and Community Grants Program has an annual budget of $110,000.  This amount covers both in-kind and cash contribution requests from grant applications. 

 

This report recommends the allocation of funds from the Grants Program for the March 2016 Round. The March 2016 Round is the second of two funding rounds for the 2015/16 financial year.  The Council has received a total of 18 applications seeking a total of $111,414.63 (in-kind and cash).

 

For the March 2016 funding round, $44,001.74 is available for allocation. This amount represents a budget split of 60:40 between September 2015 (round one) and March 2016 (round 2). A larger proportion of the budget is allocated to the September round because the spring/summer seasons are the busiest period for community organized events and activities.

 

Details of the applications recommended for funding are listed in Attachment One. Applications not recommended for funding are also listed in Attachment One.

 

Of the 18 applications received, 13 applications have been recommended by the assessment panel to receive funds totaling $43,927.33.

 

All applicants will be advised about the outcomes of their grant application.

 

Issues

 

Cultural and Community Grants Program Background

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program has an annual budget of $110,000.  This amount covers both in-kind and cash contribution requests from grant applications. There are two funding rounds per financial year, in March and September.  These are promoted in the local newspaper, on the Council’s website, and email through local community networks.

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program funding is currently awarded to locally based not-for-profit organisations or community groups. The applicants are required to demonstrate that their project benefits a cross section of our diverse community, and that no participation or entry fees are chargeable. The resulting activities or events must be held in the City of Randwick. Applicants may seek grants from Council as an in-kind contribution only (waiver of Council fees and charges), cash contribution only, or a combination of in-kind and cash contribution. 

 

The Program requires and expects a high level of accountability from funding recipients. As part of the funding acquittal process, all recipients who have received cash grants are required to provide evidence that the activity or event was held, and to complete an End of Project report.

 

March Round 2015/16 Assessment

 

The assessment process was undertaken by a panel of Council staff, including the Internal Auditor. The panel met to assess the applications and to recommend which of these should receive full, partial or no funding. All applications were assessed for compliance with the program’s funding priorities and guidelines, and the organisation’s capacity to deliver the program outcomes. Each application was assigned a numerical score reflecting a priority ranking of A, B or C. Priority levels are detailed below:

 

·         Priority A: High priority for funding. The project is consistent with program funding priorities and has special weighting and compares well with other applicants.

·         Priority B: Possibly fund if sufficient funds are available. Application meets eligibility criteria but with lower scores than the Priority A applications.  Priority B applications may lack adequate detail or be poorly targeted.

·         Priority C: Does not meet the eligibility criteria.

Through this assessment process, a total of 13 of the 18 applications fully met the funding criteria and have been recommended to receive funds totalling $43,927.33 comprising of $12,950.00 in cash and $30,977.33 in-kind (fee waiver).

 

$44,001.74 is available for allocation for this funding round being, the remaining funds following the completion of the September 2015 funding round. The $44,001.74 represents approximately a budget split of 60:40 between the September 2015 and March 2016 funding rounds, respectively.  Allocating a larger proportion of the budget to the September round is appropriate because the spring/summer seasons are the busiest period for organised community events and activities.

 

The grant applicants and a brief description of their proposed projects being recommended for funding are summarised below:

 

·         Randwick Creative Writers Production (Fawzey Hage, a resident, on behalf of a creative writing group who meet fortnightly at the Junction Neighbourhood Centre) Cash funds to produce a booklet showcasing their creative writing, and group meeting expenses.

·         Barnardos Beach Bolt (Barnardos Australia) In-kind funds (use Coogee Beach, supply of waste bins, lifeguard, car parking, and the cleaning of toilets) to hold a 1 mile foot race from the south to the north end of Coogee Beach. Event also includes a bbq and local market stalls. All proceeds going to Barnardos Australia to help children at risk of child abuse.

·         Education Program (Cape Banks History Society) Cash funds toward printing and guest speakers expenses for their six meetings on topics of family and local history.

·         Tikkun Olan a Multicultural Exploration (Jewish Arts Inc.) Cash funds towards the costs of holding a series of intercultural art workshops by presenters, to be held in Maroubra. The whole project cumulates in an art exhibition at Waverley Library.

·         Harmony Day at Kooloora (Kooloora Community Centre) Cash funds towards a multicultural gathering of local residents to celebrate Harmony Day.

·         Amateur Bodyboarding Competitions (Maroubra Bodyboarders) In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach for bodyboard competitions.

·         Monthly Surfing Contests (Maroubra Surfers Association) In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach for monthly surfing competitions.

·         Monthly Surfing Contests (North Maroubra Surf Riders) In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach for monthly surfing competitions.

·         Randwick Art Society Annual Art and Craft Exhibition (Randwick Art Society) In-kind funds to use Prince Henry Centre for Exhibition.  Cash funds towards: picture hanging, printing, advertising, and opening night catering.

·         Annual Swim Proficiency Tests (South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club) In-kind funds to use DRLC lanes and room for proficiency tests.

·         2016 Club Events (Southend Boardriders) In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach for monthly boardriding competitions.

·         Souths Cares NAIDOC Festival (Souths Cares) In-kind funds for the supply and removal of 20 bins for the event.  Cash funds towards the event staging and sound.

·         Intellectually Disabled Swimming Program (Windgap Foundation) In-kind funds to pay for entry of persons with intellectual disability living in Windgap’s Maroubra premises.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  5:     Excellence in recreation and lifestyle opportunities.

Direction:  5b:   A range of cultural, sporting and leisure activities.

 

Financial impact statement

 

The Cultural and Community Grant Program has an annual budget allocation of $110,000, to fund two allocation rounds per financial year with a budget split of 60:40 between the September 2015 and March 2016 funding rounds. The current funding round has a budget of $44,001.74 (the remainder of fund of total budget).  The amount recommended for allocation in the March 2016 is $43,927.33.

 

Conclusion

 

The Cultural and Community Grants Program plays an important role in supporting cultural and community activities that contribute to the vibrancy of the City of Randwick. It is an important program to help the Council achieve its vision of building a “sense of community”.

 

The assessment panel has recommended the funding of 13 applications, totalling $43,927.33 in cash and in-kind contribution under the current funding round, as detailed in Attachment One. 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council approves the remaining allocation of Cultural and Community Program funds totalling $43,927.33 to be allocated to the recommended grant applicants as listed in Attachment One.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Cultural and Community Grant Program  - Attachment One - Details of Recommended and Not Recommended Applications - March 2016

 

 

 

 


Cultural and Community Grant Program  - Attachment One - Details of Recommended and Not Recommended Applications - March 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

Attachment One

 

2015/2016 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – MARCH 2016 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project & Description

Amount

Requested

Rank

In-Kind Recommended

Cash

Recommended

In kind

Cash

1

Fawzey Hage

Randwick Creative Writers Production Cash funds towards workshop presenters for a series of intercultural art workshops to be held at Maroubra cumulating in an exhibition at Waverley Library.

$0.00

$1,000.00

B

$0.00

$1,000.00

2

Barnardos Australia

Barnardos Beach Bolt In-kind funds (use Coogee Beach, supply of waste bins, lifeguard, car parking, and the cleaning of toilets) to hold a 1 mile foot race on Coogee Beach. Event also includes a bbq and local market stalls. Proceeds to go to Barnardos Australia to help children at risk of child abuse.

$3,180.00

$14,853.00

B

$3,180.00

$0.00

3

Cape Banks Family History Society

Education Program Cash funds for printing and guest speakers for six meetings on topics of family and local history.

$0.00

$600.00

A

$0.00

$600.00

6

Jewish Arts Inc

Tikkun Olam a Multicultural Exploration Cash funds towards presenters for a series of intercultural art workshops to be held at Maroubra, Whole project cumulates in an art exhibition at Waverley Library.

$0.00

$2,140.00

A

$0.00

$550.00

7

Kooloora Community Centre

Harmony Day at Kooloora Cash funds towards a multicultural gathering engaging in local resident for lunch to celebrate Harmony Day.

$0.00

$5,100.00

B

$0.00

$2,600.00

8

Maroubra Bodyboarders

Amateur Bodyboarding Competitions In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach for body board competitions.

$3,803.00

$0.00

A

$3,803.00

$0.00

9

Maroubra Surfers Association

Monthly surfing contests In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach for monthly bodyboard competitions.

$3,803.00

$0.00

A

$3,803.00

$0.00

10

North Maroubra Surf Riders

Monthly Surfing Contests In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach for monthly surfing competitions.

$3,803.00

$0.00

A

$3,803.00

$0.00

11

Randwick Art Society

Randwick Art Society Annual Art and Craft Exhibition In-kind funds to use Prince Henry Centre for Exhibition.  Cash funds towards; picture hanging, printing, advertising, and opening night catering.

$6,865.33

$4,750.00

A

$6,865.33

$3,200.00

12

South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Club

Annual Swim Proficiency Tests In-kind funds to use DRLC lanes and room for Proficiency Tests.

$1,380.00

$0.00

A

$1,380.00

$0.00

13

Southend Boardriders

2016 Club Events In-kind funds for the use of Maroubra Beach for monthly surf competitions.

$3,803.00

$0.00

A

$3,803.00

$0.00

14

Souths Cares

Souths Cares NAIDOC Festival In-kind funds for the supply and removal of 20 bins for the event.  Cash funds towards the event staging and sound.

$1,700.00

$20,638.00

A

$1,700.00

$5,000.00

17

Windgap Foundation

Intellectually Disabled Swimming Program In-kind funds to pay for entry of persons with intellectual disability living in Windgap’s Maroubra Premises.

$2,640.00

$0.00

A

$2,640.00

$0.00

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$30,977.33

$12,950.00

 

 

 

 

 

Total

$43,927.33

 


2015/2016 CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM

 

APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING – MARCH 2016 ASSESSMENT

 

No.

Organisation

Name of Project

Amount Requested

Rank

Reason for not recommending - future action

In kind

Cash

4

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Coogee Carnival In-kind funds to use Coogee Beach for their Carnival.

$1,814.00

$0.00

C

Event already held. This is outside the Grant Guidelines.

5

Greek Orthodox Community of NSW

Lifting the Veil Cash and in-kind funds towards a symposium to shine a light on the Hellenic women and their personal attributes she brings with her.

$1,136.00

$0.00

C

Charging entry to the event and limited cultural connections to Randwick residents. ($40/ member & students, $50/non-member). This is outside the Grant Guidelines

15

Ted Noffs Foundation

Randwick NAIDOC Celebration Cash funds to purchase and install 3 flags and a ceremony to celebrate NAIDOC week.

$2,080.00

$4,765.00

C

Project is predominantly requesting funds for equipment which is outside the Grant Guidelines.

16

University of NSW

Indigenous Parent Engagement Program Cash funds toward teacher aids to assist indigenous young people to encourage greater participation in education by working with parents.

$0.00

$15,660.00

C

Project is a social service and is a more appropriate application for Council’s Community Partnerships Program.

18

Eileen Slarke

Little Patti, Stomping at Maroubra Cash funds towards the construction of a 150cm life-size cardboard model of Little Patti.

$0.00

$800.00

C

Late application for March 2016 Round. Application will be forwarded to the next Cultural and Community Grant funding round for assessment.

 

 

Total

$5,030.00

$21.225.00

 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council                                                                                                       22 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB 

Director Governance & Financial Services Report No. GF8/16

 

 

Subject:                  Investment Report - February 2016

Folder No:               F2015/06527

Author:                    Greg Byrne, Manager Financial Operations     

 

 Introduction

 

The Local Government (General) Regulation requires a written report to be provided to the ordinary meeting of the Council giving details of all monies invested and a certificate as to whether or not the investments have been made in accordance with the Act, the regulations and the Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Issues

 

Council is authorised by s625 of the Local Government Act to invest its surplus funds. Funds may only be invested in the form of investment notified by Order of the Minister dated 12 January 2011. The Local Government (General) Regulation prescribes the records that must be maintained in relation to Council’s Investment Policy.

 

The table in this report titled “Investment Register – February 2016” outlines the investment portfolio held by Council as at the end of February 2016. All investments have been made in accordance with the Act, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

 

Investment Commentary

 

As at 29 February 2016, Council held investments with a market value of $79.14 million. The portfolio value increased during February by ~$8.853 million. The increase is representative of a positive cash flow for the month reflecting the net effect of revenue receipts (rates, grants & miscellaneous) offset by capital works expenditure and other operational payments.

 

The size of the investment portfolio may vary significantly from month to month as a result of cash flows for the period. Cash outflows (expenditure) are typically relatively stable from one month to another. Cash inflows (income) are cyclical and are largely dependent on the rates instalment due dates and the timing of grant payments including receipts of the Financial Assistance Grants.

 

 

The following graph illustrates the movement in the investment portfolio from July 2012 to February 2016. Peaks are representative of the rates instalment periods.

 

Council’s Portfolio

 

The portfolio has high levels of liquidity with 12% of investments available at call and a further 23% of assets maturing within 3 months. Council also currently has a number of senior FRNs as additional cover for liquidity requirements (accessible within 3 business days)

 

The investment portfolio is diversified across a number of investment types and is spread across the higher rated ADIs. The various investment types may include term deposits, floating rate notes, on-call accounts and covered notes.

 

The following graph indicates the allocation of investment types held at the end of February 2016. The portfolio is dominated by term deposits (55% of the portfolio) with the higher rated ADI’s. Credit assets (FRNs) are around 33% of the portfolio.

 

 

The entire investment portfolio is diversified across the higher rated ADI’s (A- or higher).

The investment portfolio is regularly reviewed in order to maximise investment performance and minimise risk. Comparisons are made between existing investments with available products that are not part of the Council’s portfolio. Independent advice is sought on new investment opportunities.