RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

 

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 8 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


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 9 February 2016

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D17/16     A402/106 Brook Street Coogee (DA/43/2016)........................ 1

D18/16     10/311-313 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/617/1997/E)........ 9

D19/16     150 Prince Edward Street, Malabar (DA/855/2015)............... 17

D20/16     5 Ahearn Avenue, South Coogee (DA/490/2015).................. 29

D21/16     21-29 Munda Street, Randwick (DA/897/2015).................... 55

D22/16     11 Jennifer Street, Little Bay (DA/152/2015) ...................... 63

D23/16     54 Marine Parade, Maroubra
(DA/801/2015)..................................................................
73

D24/16     46 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA/77/2013/A).................... 91

D25/16     3 Mears Avenue, Randwick (DA/494/2015).......................... 99

D26/16     JRPP - 180-188 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra (DA/813/2015) ..... 115

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D17/16

 

Subject:                  A402/106 Brook Street Coogee (DA/43/2016)

Folder No:               DA/43/2016

Author:                    Gabrielle Coleman, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Installation of a vergola roof system to the roof terrace area of Unit A402 (variation to building height control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Ms P Holmes

Owner:                    Mr X F Gao

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as there is a variation of the Building Height standard by over 10%.

 

 

1.     Proposal

 

The application seeks consent for the installation of a vergola roof system to the existing roof terrace area of Unit A402.

 

2.     Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Brook Street between Dolphin Street and Ormond Gardens in Coogee and is presently occupied by two existing 5 storey buildings.

 

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

 

Image 1. Subject site.

Image 2. Proposed vergola coloured in green.

 

Image 3. Location of proposed vergola.

 

3.     Site History

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·          On 27 October 2015 DA/491/2015 approved the installation of operable louvred roof system on the existing terrace for unit B501 on the 5th floor.

 

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. As a result of this notification process, no submissions were received.

 

5.     Key Issues

 

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

 

The proposal contravenes the building height development standard of Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings, contained within the RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows:

 

Maximum Building Height Control

Clause 4.3(2) states that the maximum height of buildings on the subject site is 12m. The proposal will result in an overall building height of 16.187m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

 

4.3 (2)

Height of buildings

12m

16.187m

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

33% (4m) variation.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

·      The proposed vergola is an open structure

·      No additional height will be added to the approved building

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

·      Consistent with recent approvals for similar development in the building

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

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

 

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

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

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

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

·           The vergola will be consistent with the approved vergola at the adjacent Unit A401 under DA/134/2015 and previous approvals; DA/124/2011 and DA/491/2015

 

The proposed variation of Clause 4.3 Building Height is considered to be well founded and will meet the objectives of this clause.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

•   To protect the amenity of residents.

•   To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Comments:

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

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary in this case, for a new retractable awning to the existing balcony for Unit A402.

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal involves the addition of a pergola over the balcony located at the top level of a flat building. The external modifications are considered to maintain the architectural style of the approved development and are considered relatively minor.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/43/2016 for the installation of a vergola roof system to the roof terrace area of Unit A402 at No. A402/102-106 Brook Street, Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - A402/106 Brook Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D18/16

 

Subject:                  10/311-313 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/617/1997/E)

Folder No:               DA/617/1997/E

Author:                    Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of approved development by removal of planter boxes from roof terraces serving units 10 and 5. Original consent: Three storey residential flat building with 10 units and semi-basement parking for 12 cars

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               The Owners Corporation of Strata Plan 64375

Owner:                    Palmpoint Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview75851.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as an adjoining resident is a Randwick City Council employee.

 

1.   Background

 

The subject site accommodates a 3 storey residential flat building containing 10 dwellings, which was approved by Council in 1998 (DA 617/1997). Condition 7 of the original development consent required fixed planter boxes around the edge of the roof terraces serving unit 5 and 10 to mitigate overlooking of the adjoining properties. The planter boxes for both terraces were installed when the building was constructed. However, the planter boxes on the roof terrace accessed from unit 10 were later removed without Council’s consent.

 

The following Section 96 modification applications in relation to the roof terrace serving unit 10 have subsequently been determined by Council:

 

·          On 11 June 2013, Council granted approval to install frosted glazing above the masonry balustrade in lieu of the planter boxes (DA 617/1997/C); and

·          On 14 July 2015, Council granted approval to replace some sections of the frosted glazing above the masonry balustrade with a stainless steel handrail, subject to the provision of a 1 m wide planter box along the eastern edge of the terrace to unit 10 (DA/617/1997/D).

 

2.   Proposed Modification

 

The proposal seeks approval to modify Condition 7 of the development consent by removing the requirement for a planter box at the:

 

·          eastern and western edge of the roof terrace accessed from unit 5; and

·          eastern edge of the roof terrace accessed from unit 10.

 

3.   Site and Surrounds

 

Immediately to the west is a service station fronting Maroubra Road and an adjacent side laneway known as Clio Lane. The adjoining land to the east contains a single storey dwelling house at No. 315 Maroubra Road. On 24 November 2015, Council granted development consent for the demolition of the existing dwelling house at 315 Maroubra Road, and construction of a three storey residential flat building containing 9 dwellings.  Land adjoining to the south contains the rear yards of dwellings houses fronting Haig Street.

 

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. One submission was received from the property at 70 Haig Street. In response to potential privacy impacts to the residential properties to the south fronting Haig Street, the submission requests the installation of privacy screens in lieu of the originally required planter boxes.

 

5.   Section 96 Assessment

 

The proposal has been lodged as a S96(2) application which allows for the modification of an existing consent if the Consent Authority:

 

(a)   is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all), and

 

Prior to assessing the application in relation to the acceptability of any potential environmental impacts, it must be determined whether the proposed modifications result in a development that is "substantially the same" as that which was originally approved. The proposed modification seeks to modify the requirements for planter boxes serving the roof terraces at units 5 and 10. The proposed development would not change the overall built form or use of the building and is therefore considered to be substantially the same as that approved under the original DA.

 

(b)   it has consulted with the relevant Minister, public authority or approval body (within the meaning of Division 5) in respect of a condition imposed as a requirement of a concurrence to the consent or in accordance with the general terms of an approval proposed to be granted by the approval   body and that Minister, authority or body has not, within 21 days after being consulted, objected to the modification of that consent, and

 

Not Applicable.

 

(c)   it has notified the application in accordance with:

(i)  the regulations, if the regulations so require, or

(ii)  a development control plan, if the consent authority is a council that has made a development control plan that requires the notification or advertising of applications for modification of a development consent, and

 

The proposed modification request has been notified in accordance with Council’s public notification policy.

 

(d)   it has considered any submissions made concerning the proposed modification within the period prescribed by the regulations or provided by the development control plan, as the case may be.

 

All submissions have been considered in the assessment of the application.

 

(3)     In determining an application for modification of a consent under this section, the consent authority must take into consideration such of the matters referred to in section 79C (1) as are of relevance to the development the subject of the application.

 

 Refer to discussion in Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this assessment report.

 

(4)     The modification of a development consent in accordance with this section is taken not to be the granting of development consent under this Part, but a reference in this or any other Act to a development consent includes a reference to a development consent as so modified.

 

Noted.

 

6.   Relevant Environmental Planning Instruments

 

6.1 Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential under LEP 2012.  The relevant objective of the R3 zone seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents. Subject to the extension to the approved privacy screen at the eastern edge of the terrace serving unit 10, the proposed modification would not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

 

7.   Policy Controls

7.1 Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

Part C2 Section 5.3 Visual Privacy

The privacy controls seek to ensure a reasonable level of privacy between neighbouring properties, which is achieved through the implementation of design measures, including minimum floor to sill heights of 1.6m, off-setting windows and privacy screens. This application proposes to modify the approved privacy measures.

 

Privacy Impacts

·      Roof terrace accessed from Unit 5

The roof terrace accessed from unit 5 includes fixed planter boxes along its eastern and western edges, which were installed in accordance with Condition 7 of the original development consent when the building was originally constructed (refer to Figure 1). The applicant advises that over the years significant water ingress issues associated with the planter boxes has resulted in water damage to unit 5 below. The planter boxes were originally proposed to prevent occupants from standing close to the edge and looking down into the adjoining properties. As the roof terrace accessed from unit 5 is located at the northern end of the building (overlooking Maroubra Road), the views downwards into the adjoining properties include a commercial property (service station) to the west, and the roof of the existing dwelling house at 315 Maroubra Road to the east. The existing views would not result in any unacceptable privacy impacts, and the removal of the planter boxes is therefore supported.

 

·      Roof terrace accessed from Unit 10

The roof terrace accessed from unit 10 is required to provide a 1 m wide planter box along its eastern edge to prevent occupants from standing at the edge and looking down into the rear yard of the adjoining residential property to the east at 315 Maroubra Road. Council recently granted consent for a three storey residential flat building at 315 Maroubra Road. The approved building orientates the dwellings to the north and south, and the openings at the western elevation facing the subject site are generally bathroom windows. Also, the approved roof terraces at 315 Maroubra Road are required to have privacy screens to mitigate views to the adjoining properties. It is reasonable to assume the consent would be activated in the short term given the high demand for denser forms of housing in the Randwick LGA.  On that basis the proposed removal of the approved planter boxes along the eastern edge of the roof terrace accessed from unit 10 is supported.

 

The approved privacy screen along the southern edge, including the spayed corner would be retained to mitigate privacy impacts to the residential properties at the rear fronting Haig Street. In order to mitigate the oblique views to the south from the eastern edge it is recommended that the approved privacy screen be extended to a length of 7 m from the splayed corner along the eastern edge of the roof terrace. Condition 7 in the development consent is modified accordingly.

 

Figure 1Existing planter boxes on the eastern and western edge of the roof terrace serving unit 5

 

Eastern edgeRecommended extension of the approved privacy screen Haig Street properties to the rear privacy screen above masonry balustrade approved to this point (DA/617/1997/D)

Figure 2View from northern end of the terrace serving unit 10 looking south

8.   Environmental Assessment

 

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Refer to Section 6.

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

Not applicable

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

The proposal generally satisfies the privacy controls in DCP 2013.

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

The proposed development is not considered to result in detrimental social or amenity impacts on the locality.

 

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

The site currently operates as a ‘residential flat development’.

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

The issues raised in the submissions have been addressed in this report.

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

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome:  Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction:  Improved design and sustainability across all development.

 

Financial Impact Statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification satisfies Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, in that it will constitute substantially the same development.

 

The removal of the existing planter boxes on the roof terrace accessed from unit 5 would not result in any unacceptable privacy impacts given the downward views when standing at the edge include a commercial property to the west and the roof of an existing dwelling house to the east.

 

The removal of the approved planter box along the eastern edge of the roof terrace accessed from unit 10 would not result in any unacceptable privacy impacts given the adjoining site at 315 Maroubra Road has been approved for a residential flat building, which is orientated to the north and south, and incorporates screening measures to mitigate cross viewing.

 

There would be no unreasonable privacy impacts to the properties at the rear fronting Haig Street, subject to extending the privacy screen above the masonry balustrade.

Accordingly, the proposed modification is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/617/1997/D for permission to modify Conditions 1 and 7 as follows:

 

Condition 7 is amended by the insertion of the bold and underlined words/numbers and deletion of the words/numbers as follows:

 

“7(a). The roof terrace serving unit 5 shall be fixed planter boxes around the periphery of the roof with a minimum of 500mm and height of 500mm and shall be appropriately landscaped. The roof terrace serving unit 10 shall have fixed privacy screens comprising frosted glass at a height of 640mm above the southern, south-eastern (splayed), eastern (for a distance of 2.78m7m from the splayed corner) masonry balustrade and frosted glass at a height of a 340mm above the northern masonry balustrade and a stainless steel handrail 250 mm above the western and eastern masonry balustrade. A 1m wide planter box shall also be provided along the eastern edge of the terrace to prevent views down into the rear yard of No. 315 Maroubra Road.

 

Details of compliance shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

(b)   The works approved pursuant to the S96(D) determination must be implemented and an occupation certificate issued within 6 months of the date of this determination.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D19/16

 

Subject:                  150 Prince Edward Street, Malabar (DA/855/2015)

Folder No:               DA/855/2015

Author:                    City Plan Services, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 storey dwelling with roof terrace, semi-basement garage, swimming pool to rear and associated works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Ms N S McLean

Owner:                    Ms N S McLean & Mr R J Hughes

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview61194.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

No submissions

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination, as the applicant declared an affiliation with a Randwick City Councillor.

1.     Proposal

 

The proposal is for the demolition of the existing structures and the construction of a three (3) storey dwelling, semi-basement garage, swimming pool to the rear and associated works, at 150 Prince Edward Street, Malabar.

 

2.     Site

 

The subject site is located at No. 150 Prince Edward Street, Malabar, and is legally described as Lot 12 in Deposited Plan 31637. The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 15.25m to Prince Edward Street, a depth of approximately 38m, and a total area of 577.2m2.

 

The site contains a one (1) storey dwelling house. The immediate locality is characterised by a mix of one, two and three storey dwelling houses. Figure 1 below shows the site and adjoining properties.

Figure 1: Existing properties at 150 Prince Edward Street (centre), 152 Prince Edward Street (left), and 148 Prince Edward Street (right).

 

3.     Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development. No submissions were received.

 

4.     Amended Plans/information

 

A preliminary assessment of the development application identified a number of issues associated with the proposal that were then notified to the applicant via an additional information letter dated 19 January 2016. These issues included non-compliances with the Randwick Local Environment Plan 2012 (LEP) and the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP), relating to the following:

 

·      The application did not include a written request to justify the height non-compliance in accordance with Clause 4.6 of the LEP; and

·      The proposed rooftop terrace was inconsistent with the provisions in Sub-section 4.4 of the DCP.

 

The applicant submitted a Clause 4.6 justification and revised plans to Council on 3 February 2016.

 

 

5.     Key Issues

 

An examination of the development against the relevant planning controls reveals the following key issues:

 

5.1   Randwick Local Environmental Plan (RLEP)

Request to vary a development standard – Clause 4.6 - Height

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

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum building height development standard of Clause 4.3: Height of buildings, contained within the RLEP. The applicant has submitted a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6. The variation is addressed as follows.

 

Clause 4.3(2) states that the height for a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map. The subject proposal is for a dwelling house and the subject site as per the Height of buildings map has a maximum height of 9.5m. The proposed development has a maximum building height of 10.2m (a 7.4% variation).

 

Figure 1: North-west elevation of the development, red dotted line showing the max. building height (Drawing No. DA1.03)

 

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

Pursuant to clause 4.6(3) of the RLEP, 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 the RLEP 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 the RLEP, 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 maximum building height standard are set out in clause 4.3(1) of the RLEP as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications are set out below:

 

 

 

In summary the applicant has made the following arguments:

 

·      There are several dwellings on Prince Edward Street and in the surrounding area that are large in scale and bulk for low-density zoning and that also exceed the 9.5m maximum building height control. These include:

 

66 Prince Edward Street with a building height of 10.4m;

97 Austral Street with a 10m height; and

3 Adams Avenue with a 11.24m building height.

 

The applicant considers that despite these breached building heights, the abovementioned developments make best use of the natural environment, landform, views, proximity to the city and general lifestyle of the area, and therefore contribute to the desired future character of the locality. The applicant considers that the proposed development is consistent with these approved developments and compatible with the desired future character of the area.

 

·      The proposed development does not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and neighboring land. This is due to:

 

The significant setbacks of Bedroom 5, as well as the steep viewing angle, reducing the visual presence of this section of the building;

The proposed development ensures no loss of privacy through considered window placement on the second level and wide planter boxing on the upper floor balcony;

The amended shadow diagrams demonstrating that the additional height does not contribute to additional overshadowing; and

The proposed development generally maintaining existing view vistas with the setbacks in compliance or in excess of the minimum requirements, and the neighbouring properties having no loss of views due to the front setback alignments, and the rear properties having no loss of views due to the existing view corridors being maintained and further widened.

 

Therefore, the applicant considers that there are no adverse impacts in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing and views, as a result of the height control breach.

 

Planning comment:

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

 

·          Regarding objective (a), the proposed development is consistent with multiple dwellings in the site’s immediate context, which are of a large size and scale and that breach the height standard. The proposed development and these surrounding dwellings benefit from and make best use of great views and close proximity to the city and the natural environment. The proposed development and these surrounding dwellings are considered appropriate given the sloping topography of the land. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is compatible with the existing and desired future character of area. 

 

·          With regard to objective (b), the site is not located within a conservation area nor nearby any heritage items, therefore this objective is not applicable.

 

·          In relation to objective (c), the development will not adversely impact on the amenity of adjoining and surrounding properties in terms of visual bulk, privacy, overshadowing and view loss. The area of the building that breaches the height standard relates to a room on the top floor of the building indicated as ‘Bedroom 5’. The room is setback 3.9m from the north-eastern edge of the building, 3.9m from the south-western edge, 13.5m from the front and 19.2m from the rear of the building. These setbacks ensure that the visual presence of this section of the dwelling is minimised. Any privacy impact as a result of this section of the building is mitigated through considered window placement and planter boxing around the perimeter of the balcony. There is no additional overshadowing from the increased height. The view vistas of properties to the side and rear are maintained and even increased. 

 

The applicant’s written justifications for varying the height standard has adequately demonstrated that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

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

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

 

The proposed development is consistent with the size and scale of developments in the surrounding area. The area breaching the height standard will not contribute to any additional overshadowing. The proposal maintains the existing view corridors and does not result in any loss of views, by virtue of the subdivision pattern. 

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the maximum building height standard. The objectives for development within the R2 Low Density Residential zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out are:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·       To protect the amenity of residents.

 

·       To encourage housing affordability.

 

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

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R2 zone. The proposal provides for an appropriate low-density housing development, both in the context of the site and as envisaged within the R2 zone.

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring sites.

 

The proposed development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within R2 zone.

 

(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.

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 the RLEP 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 the RLEP.

 

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

5.2   Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (DCP)

 

Upper Floor Balcony

The amended plans include an upper floor balcony, in lieu of a roof top terrace that was proposed with the original plans. The roof-top terrace was in-consistent with Sub-section 4.4 Clause i) of the DCP. Changes to the plans, allowed for the creation of an upper floor balcony aligning directly with the built form of Bedroom 5 and including glass balustrades and planter boxing around the perimeter, as shown below, to satisfy Sub-section 5.3 Clause iii) of the DCP.

 

Figure 2: Second floor plan (Drawing No. DA1.02)

 

Wall Height

The proposed does not meet the wall height control due to upper level bedroom. This height non-compliance is also addressed in the clause 4.6 assessment. However, at the lower levels which contain the substantive volume of the building, the proposal generally complies with the 8m external wall height control for a sloping site. There is also a minor non-compliance towards the front of the south east portion of the site at the lower levels, measuring 8.1m. This non-compliance is considered minor.  The proposal is consistent with DCP objectives relating to wall height, in that the proposed form and massing of the development respects the topography of the site, and the proposed wall height will not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of overshadowing, view loss, privacy and visual amenity. External wall heights on the side elevations  of the lower levels vary between 6.6m and 7.6m.

 

Front Fence

The proposed comprises a solid front fence measuring 1.8m in height, with a telescopic front gate with 50% open slats. The DCP only permits 1.8m solid fences when the site faces an arterial road or is along a secondary street frontage (corner allotment). It is noted, however, that along Prince Edward Street are multiple properties that have a solid front fence measuring approximately 1.8m. As such, the proposed fence will be consistent with objectives relating to fencing, in that the proposed front fence will complement the streetscape character.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

A comprehensive assessment of the proposed development has been undertaken and all supporting information has been reviewed against the applicable environmental planning provisions.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.       That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/855/2015 for demolition of existing structures, construction of 3 storey dwelling with roof terrace, semi-basement garage, swimming pool to rear and associated works at 150 Prince Edward Street, Malabar subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 150 Prince Edward Street, Malabar

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D20/16

 

Subject:                  5 Ahearn Avenue, South Coogee (DA/490/2015)

Folder No:               DA/490/2015

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of new four level dwelling including double garage, swimming pool and studio to rear, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr T R Rugless & Mrs T E Rugless

Owner:                    Mr T R Rugless & Mrs T E Rugless

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=8b612d37-71be-4251-ad0a-209f47b245f8&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed development exceeds the the development standard for the maximum height of buildings under Clause 4.3(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%.

 

1.       Proposal

 

The proposal is for demolition of existing the dwelling, construction of new four level dwelling including double garage, swimming pool and studio to the rear, landscaping and associated works.  The dwelling consists of the following:

 

Basement floor

The basement floor contains a double garage which is accessed directly from Ahearn Avenue, lift within the garage and entry foyer.

 

Ground floor level 

The ground floor consists of 4 bedrooms with the main bedroom containing an ensuite and walk-in-robe, family room, bathroom, laundry and lift.  A deck area is proposed off the family room to the front of the dwelling.

 

First floor level

The first floor level mainly consists of the living area and contains a living room with fire place, home theatre, dining, kitchen with walk-in-pantry, powder room and lift.  A deck area is proposed off the dining room to the front of the dwelling.

 

Second floor level

The second floor level contains a studio, bathroom, storage, large void area and lift.  A deck area is proposed off the studio to the front of the dwelling.

 

2.       Site & surrounding development

 

The site is described as Lot 5 in DP 29787, known as 5 Ahearn Avenue, South Coogee. The subject and surrounding adjoining sites are zoned R2 – Low Density Residential.  The site is restricted to 9.5 metres in height and 0.75:1 in floor space. 

 

The subject site is located within a cul-de-sac on the western side of Ahearn Avenue and is currently occupied by a two storey dwelling house.  This site is irregular in shape with a total site area of 419.25m².  The site has an arc frontage of 15.2m and has varied side boundaries of 25.6m to the southern side and 30.2m to the northern side.  The boundary dimension to the rear is 13.7m.

 

The site features a fall in topography over several terraced levels from the rear to the front of the site to the effect of approximately 10 metres.

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by a mixture of single, 2 and 3 storey large dwelling house developments.  To the south of the subject site is a 3 storey dwelling house at no. 4 Ahearn Avenue.  The north the subject site is attached to three properties addressed as no.’s 19, 21 & 23 Cairo Street and their rear yards directly abut on to the common boundary with the subject site.  To the west of the subject site is the side property boundary of no 11A Bloomfield Street and is the rear yard component of the property that abuts the subject site.

 

Figure 1: Photo of the exisitng subject site and adjoining buildings within the cul-de-sac

3.       Request to vary development standard

 

Clause 4.6 - Exceptions to development standards

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

 

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

 

The proposed development will increase the maximum building height from 9.17m to 12.02m (RL 40.03) from the basement garage slab level to top of the roof profile at the highest point. The height of the proposal exceeds the 9.5 metre height limit by 2.52m.

 

Clause 4.3 of the LEP nominates that the height of a building is not to exceed the maximum height on the Height of Buildings Map. The maximum building height as shown on the map is 9.5m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Maximum Height of Buildings

Development Standard

9.5m

Existing Building height

9.17m

Proposed Building height

12.02m

Excess above RLEP Standard

26.53%

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justification for the departure from the standard is detailed below:

 

1. Compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case - clause 4.6(3) (a)

I submit that compliance with the standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case because the proposal complies with the objectives of the standard and the zone. Please see the assessment under 4 – The proposed development will be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out – clause 4.6(4)(a)(i).

 

In addition to consistency with the objectives of the standard and the zone, there are circumstances particular to the site that support that compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

The proposal seeks to demolish the existing dwelling house and construct a new dwelling house. However, it is noted that the proposed dwelling will utilise the existing basement garage, which given that it was previously excavated for the existing dwelling, results in a breach of the height limit, as defined by the Randwick LEP 2012.

 

If the proposed development was based upon the existing ground levels prior to the construction of the proposed replacement dwelling house, the proposal would therefore be fully compliant, as illustrated by the north and south elevations prepared by Urban Future, dated 16 October, 2015.

 

As demonstrated on the north and east elevations below, the proposal, from a streetscape perspective remains compliant with the 9.5m height limit. Therefore it is considered that there are no visual bulk or scale impacts associated with the proposed breach nor will it result in an overdevelopment of the subject site, given that the breach is not perceptive from the adjoining properties or the eastern / street facade. Furthermore, the proposed nature of the building and associated height, in that it is a two storey dwelling with a recessed third storey, is consistent with the building envelopes of those dwelling houses within the immediate area, including 2, 3, 4 and 6 Ahearn Street.

 

Figure 2: Proposed dwelling as viewed from the north, illustrating the degree of compliance, as perceived from the north of the site.

 

Figure 3: Proposed dwelling as viewed from Ahearn Avenue, confirming that the proposed dwelling will retain the appearance of a building with a compliant building height.

 

Further to the above, given that the proposed development is situated on a steeply slopping site, the proposed dwelling house remains well under the allowable 9.5m height limit when viewed from the properties to the west (as illustrated in Figure 4 below) and therefore it is considered that the proposed breach in the height limit is not responsible for any adverse view loss. It is also noted that the properties to the west are situated on land that is elevated higher than the subject site and therefore it is considered that upper level views will be retained across the site, towards the eastern coast.

 

Figure 4: Western elevation illustrating the height of the proposed dwelling as perceived by the western neighbours.

 

It is therefore considered that whilst the proposed dwelling maintains the appearance of a building with a 9.5m height limit along the front, rear and side elevations, the definition of height in accordance with the Randwick LEP 2012, results in a technical breach, which is associated with the already excavated basement garage.

 

It is further reiterated that the proposed dwelling maintains the appearance of a dwelling with a compliant height and is therefore considered to not be responsible for any greater adverse amenity impacts, above and beyond that associated with a complaint building envelope.

 

As stated above, the breach is specific to the location of where the existing, excavated basement garage overlaps with the upper most recessed level. The extent of the breach is limited to a minor portion of the building, having a width of 10m and a depth of 3.5m as shown on the roof plan below:

 

Figure 5: Red box indicating the extent of the height breach, being the location where the garage and upper most level overlap.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed height of 12.02m in this minor location of the building is appropriate in this instance. The bulk, scale and density is of a similar nature to the immediately adjoining dwellings within this slopping section of Ahearn Avenue, and therefore the proposed development is consistent with the character of other dwellings, when viewed from a streetscape perspective or from neighbouring properties.

 

The reasonable nature of the development is further demonstrated through the high degree of compliance with the allowable FSR, setbacks, site coverage, solar access and overshadowing, thereby confirming the suitability of the proposed development on the subject site.

 

The absence of environmental impacts associated with the proposed dwelling house in regard to privacy, loss of amenity and outlook and overshadowing further underlines the reasonable nature of the height variation in this instance.

It is thereby considered that the circumstances of the subject site, confirms the reasonable nature of the variation in this instance.

 

The high degree of compliance and lack of amenity impacts to neighbouring properties is confirmation that the proposed height breach is supportable by way of this clause 4.6 variation, particularly given that it is a technical breach associated with the already excavated basement garage and has limited perceptive impacts.

It is thereby considered that the circumstances are particular to the subject site which confirms the reasonable nature of the variation in this instance.

 

THE VARIATION ALLOWS FOR A BETTER PLANNING OUTCOME

Assessment:

The height variation allows for a better planning outcome as it supports a dwelling house that is fully compliant in terms of FSR, setbacks, open space, landscaped areas and solar access.

 

As previously stated, the breach in the height limit is specific to a minor portion of the upper level, where it overlaps with the existing excavated basement. The removal of this portion would reduce the amenity of the upper level studio as it would require the stairs and lift to be repositioned whilst also resulting in the removal of the timber deck. Therefore, any reduction in the proposed height would compromise the internal amenity of the dwelling house.

 

It is therefore considered that given there is no perceptive breach associated with the proposed height and that it results in a better internal layout and a high degree of internal amenity, the proposed height achieves a better planning outcome.

Furthermore, the proposed height is consistent with the height, bulk and scale of dwellings within the immediate area and therefore it conforms to the character of the streetscape.

 

I therefore submit that strict compliance with the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the particular circumstances of the case.

 

2. Sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard – clause 4.6(3)(b)

The additional height is not responsible for any greater environmental impacts than a proposal with a compliant height. Given the lack of streetscape and amenity impacts, there is no sound planning justification to reduce the proposed height.

 

It is also reiterated that there are no external impacts associated with the additional height nor are there any bulk or scale impacts. It is considered that the additional height is associated with an appropriate form of development for the subject site and is compatible with the form, bulk and scale of the existing dwellings within the Ahearn Avenue streetscape. It is therefore confirmed that the increased height is not associated with an overdevelopment of the subject site, particularly given that the height would be compliant prior to the excavation of the existing basement for the existing dwelling.

 

It is noted that the breach in the height limit is specific to a minor portion of the uppermost level, which overlaps with the existing excavated basement. Therefore the breach is a technical breach rather than a perceptive breach. This is highlighted on the northern, south, east and west elevations submitted within the architectural package prepared by Urban Future, dated October 2015 and within Figures 2, 3 and 4 above.

 

Given that there are no additional overshadowing, view and privacy impacts, the proposed variation is considered to be appropriate in this instance.

 

3. Adequately addressed the matters required to be demonstrative by subclause (3) – clause 4.6(4)(a)(i)

Please see submission in relation to clause 4.6(3)(a)(i) and (ii) above.

 

4. 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 – clause 4.6(4)(a)(ii)

The proposed height variation is considered to be justified on the following basis:

 

RLEP 2012 HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS OBJECTIVES:-

4.3 Height of Buildings

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

 

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

 

Assessment: The size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality with the proposal being highly comparable in size and scale to that of adjacent neighbouring and surrounding properties within the immediate vicinity.

 

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

 

Assessment: The proposal is a not a heritage item, nor is it located within a conservation area. Therefore objective (b) is not relevant in this instance.

 

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

 

Assessment: The proposed height is not considered to have any unreasonable or adverse shadow, privacy or view impacts, which is considered to be an exceptional result in this coastal area where there are often adverse impacts associated with height such as view loss, shadow and privacy. It is reiterated that the height of the dwelling will sit neatly in the Ahearn Avenue streetscape, as demonstrated on the submitted plans prepared by Urban Future, dated 18 October, 2015.

 

CONSISTENCY WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONE R2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

Zone R2 – Low Density Residential 1 Objectives of zone

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

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

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

·    To protect the amenity of residents.

·    To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment: The proposed dwelling house is permissible on the subject site and represents a significant enhancement to the presentation of the site in the foreshore scenic protection area. The proposed design also provides for excellent internal amenity to the proposed new dwelling whilst also protecting the amenity of adjoining neighbours.

 

The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with the zone objectives.

The proposal and its associated height variation will continue to protect the amenity of residents to the extent that the objective was intended.

 

OTHER MATTERS - CONSISTENCY WITH STATE AND REGIONAL PLANNING POLICIES

Assessment: The proposed variation to the height standard does not raise any inconsistencies with State or Regional Policies.

 

The replacement of the existing dwelling house with a new dwelling house that has been designed to in accordance with the existing streetscape character ensures that the height and scale of the dwelling is complementary to the built form of the locality. Furthermore, the proposal retains the low density residential nature of the area through the provision of a single dwelling house that has been designed to achieve a high degree of compliance with the Randwick DCP low density residential provisions.

The proposed replacement dwelling is therefore considered to achieve the objectives of the zone and the height standard, notwithstanding the minor technical breach associated with a minor portion of the uppermost level.

 

Conclusion

The above assessment has demonstrated that the height control is unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstances and that there would be no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

It has also been demonstrated that the proposed height meets the objectives of the height standard as well as the objectives of the zone to an equal or better degree than a compliant development.

 

The minor technical height breach within the proposal occurs due to the excavated basement of the existing garage and is not a direct result of the proposed design, which based upon the existing ground levels prior to the development of the existing house, would result in the proposal achieving compliance with the 9.5m height limit.

 

It is therefore considered that the lack of external impacts and the suitability of the proposed development on the subject site, confirms that the height breach associated with a minor portion of the upper most level is considered to be reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances of this development application.

 

For reasons mentioned herein, this Clause 4.6 variation is forwarded to Council in support of the variation to the height associated with the proposed replacement dwelling house at 5 Ahearn Avenue, South Coogee and is requested to be looked upon favourably by Council.

 

Planner’s comments

The maximum building height of the development has been calculated from the basement level (being the ground level) which results in the proposed development not meeting the 9.5 metre height standard in the Randwick LEP 2012. The applicant has argued, however, that the height of the building would otherwise comply with the 9.5 metre RLEP height limit if the proposed development was based upon the existing ground levels prior to the construction of the proposed replacement dwelling house. Refer to figures 2 to 5 above.

 

Decisions of the Land & Environmental Court acknowledge the difficulties in interpreting the height standard due to the broad definition of ground level (existing) in the Standard Instrument LEP. 

 

The following RLEP definitions are relevant to the circumstances of this case:

 

building height (or height of building) means the vertical distance between ground level (existing) and the highest point of the building, including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes, masts, flagpoles, chimneys, flues and the like.

 

ground level (existing) means the existing level of a site at any point.

 

basement means the space of a building where the floor level of that space is predominantly below ground level (existing) and where the floor level of the storey immediately above is less than 1 metre above ground level (existing).

 

The key issue in assessing the variation to the height standard is determining what the actual ground level is, upon which to measure the height of the building.

 

The existing building does not occupy the whole of the site, and therefore, given the LEP definition, the ‘ground level’ would be ground level below finished basement level as well as the soil/garden/paved area around the building. This is pertinent because if the height of the proposed development was measured from the existing ground level surrounding the building, the proposal would comply outside of the basement garage area with the RLEP 9.5 metre height limit. As such, there should be some consideration given to the relationship of the proposed building to its context.  In terms of a merit assessment, the determination of the ground level should be based on its relationship to the overall topography that includes the site and its context and not to the aberrations in height that exist across a site as a result of significant cut and fill.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the test as to the acceptability of the breach is ultimately the extent to which the proposed development suitably meets the objectives of the height standard in the RLEP.  In summary, it is considered that strict compliance with the height of building development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary for the following reasons:

 

·       The FSR proposed on the site complies with the control standard in the LEP 2012. The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape. The proposed uppermost level is not significantly visible from the street frontage as it is substantially setback from the front boundary. As a result, when viewed from the streetscape, the proposed development reads as a 3 storey building and meets the building height limit in the LEP. 

 

The non-compliant portion of the building does not appear as a dominating element as it is localised to the centre of the building where the site drops significantly and is consistent with the predominant height and built form of developments within Ahearn Avenue and in the immediate locality.  Refer to figure 5. Due to the steep sloping topography of the site the building when viewed from the rear is not significantly noticeable from neighbouring properties as it is embedded within controls of the land.

 

·       The proposed development has been skilfully designed to ensure that amenity impacts on neighbouring properties are minimised by following the topography of the site. The non-complying portion of the development will not adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding land uses in terms of privacy, visual bulk and views as discussed in detail in the relevant sections of this report.

 

·       The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the DCP solar access requirements to adjoining properties.  There are two north facing widows.  The living room window at the upper most level will not be impacted by the proposed development and only the entry hall way window on the lower ground level will be further overshadowed by the proposed development which is considered to be acceptable. 

 

Due to the topography of the site it is expected that the subject and neighbouring properties private open spaces will be impacted by the proposed development; however, the shadow diagrams demonstrate that the additional shadows are not unreasonable and parts of the rear yards will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight during the winter solstice between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

On this basis, the additional overshadowing created by the proposed development is considered acceptable in the circumstances of this case.

 

·       There are no heritage items within the vicinity of the development that will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

·       Other environmental impacts resulting from the development are considered to be acceptable and comply with the relevant objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013 as discussed in the compliance report and in following sections of this report.  The proposed development is consistent with the desired future character of the locality as envisaged by the built form controls incorporated in both the LEP & DCP.

 

In conclusion, the applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that compliance with the development standard in question is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

·       To protect the amenity of residents.

·       To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed development is permissible within the R2 Low Density Residential zone of RLEP 2012. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it is sympathetic to the existing built environment and will not result in unacceptable impacts on the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal has been designed with consideration of surrounding amenity, seeking to minimise environmental impacts upon neighbouring properties. The proposed built form serves to maintain the desirable attributes of the existing and desired future character of the residential area.

 

The development is considered to be in the public interest because it is consistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 – Low Density Residential.

 

Does the Council have delegation to exercise the concurrence function of the

Director-General of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for development that contravenes a development standard? If so:

 

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

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

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submissions

 

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

 

4 Ahearn Avenue, South Coogee

Issue

Comment

Views loss

Iconic views from the north facing living room window will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Refer to Key Issues under View sharing assessment which addresses this concern.

 

Overshadowing impact, loss of sunlight and ventilation

The north facing living room window will be overshadowed by the southern wall of the proposed development.  This wall will also limit access to sunlight and ventilation.

Refer to Key Issues under Solar access to neighbouring development which addresses this concern.

 

 

 

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RCDCP 2013)

The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

Part C1: Low Density Residential

 

Sub-section 3.2 - External Wall Height:

Objectives for the external wall height control include ensuring the provision of interesting roof forms which are compatible with the street and the minimisation of bulk in order to limit overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity impacts.

 

The DCP control limits the external wall height to 8m for sloping sites. The maximum wall height of the dwelling is 9.5m to the centre of the building on the north side elevation where the site drops significantly. Parts of the walls to the side and rear of the building comply with the 8m wall height control. 

 

The non-compliant sections of the external wall height are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       The non-compliance is limited to various sections of the wall where the site drops significantly at the front of the dwelling and where the additional third (3rd) level is located at the centre of the building.  The wall height towards the front of the dwelling is not dissimilar in height and built form to other dwellings in the streetscape due to the significant drop in the land towards the front of the site and therefore, does not appear as a dominating element.

 

The third level in question is localised to the rear of the dwelling and is not significantly visible from the street frontage as it is substantially setback from the front boundary.  As a result, when viewed from the streetscape, the proposed development reads as a 3 storey building. Also, the third level to the southern side is embedded in the roof form and the external wall height reads as a two storey dwelling.  This minimises overshadowing impacts to the north facing windows of the neighbouring property at no. 4 Ahearn Avenue and also softens the appearance of the dwelling when viewed from this property.

 

·       As discussed in various sections of this report the additional wall height area does not contribute to any significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, view loss or overshadowing.

 

·       The dwelling is well articulated with different finishes and materials and a central court yard area is provided to the eastern side of the dwelling which provides visual relief along this elevation.  These design elements will create visual interest to the walls and soften the appearance as viewed from the neighbouring dwellings and the street.

Having regard to the above assessment, departure from the external wall height requirement of Council’s DCP is acceptable and consistent with the objectives of the DCP.

 

Sub-section 3.3 - Setbacks

 

Objectives

·       To maintain or establish a consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the character of the neighbourhood.

 

·       To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

1.     Comply with the minimum side setbacks as follows:

 

Dwelling Houses & Dual Occupancies

(Attached & Detached)

 

Frontage width

Ground storey

First storey

Second storey & above

Frontage over 12m

1200mm

1200mm

1800mm

 

Sub-section 3.3.1 - Front setbacks

The neighouring buildings within Ahearn Avenue are general sited close up to the front boundary.  The proposed front setback is generally consistent and sympathetic to the existing character of the street which is located within a cul-de-sac.  The proposal adopts similar minimal front setback as that which currently exists and is generally compatible with neighbouring dwellings to the south along Ahearn Avenue and the established setbacks in the streetscape. (Refer to photo in figure 1 which shows the existing streetscape). The proposed design maintains a streetscape presentation consistent with neighbouring properties and will contribute positively to the character of the neighbourhood which satisfies the objectives of the control.

 

Sub -section 3.3.2 - Side setbacks

 

 

Single dwelling

 

DCP control

Proposed

Compliance

 

Ground storey (basement garage)

Southern side setback

The southern side setback varies from 2.3m to the front of the building to 1.12m to the rear of the building.

 

The rear section of the building does not comply.

 

Northern side setback

The building is setback 1.55m to the northern side boundary.

 

Complies

 

First storey

 

Southern side setback

The southern side setback varies from 2.3m to the front of the building to 1.12m to the rear of the building.

 

The rear section of the building does not comply.

Northern side setback

The building is setback 1.55m to the northern side boundary.

 

Complies

Second storey

 

Southern side setback

The southern side setback varies from 2.3m to the front of the building to 1.12m to the rear of the building.

 

 

The rear section of the building does not comply.

Northern side setback

The building is setback 1.55m to the northern side boundary.

 

Complies

Third storey

 

Southern side setback

The southern side setback varies from 4.1m to the front of the building to 3.4m to the rear of the building.

 

Complies

Northern side setback

The building is setback 1.55m to the northern side boundary.

Does not comply

 

The majority of the development meets the side setback control. However, parts of the northern and southern side of the walls do not meet the above control. 

 

The proposed side setbacks are considered acceptable and will comply with the objectives of the control for the following reasons:

 

·      In relation to the southern elevation the non-compliant section is limited to the north western corner of the building and as discussed in the relevant section of this report will not result in any unreasonable overshadow impacts to the neighbouring dwelling at no. 4 Ahearn Avenue. The up most level is setback greater than 1.8m and is incorporated within the roof profile of the building. The non-compliant section of the building is largely due to the southern boundary being tapering on an angle from the front to the rear of the boundary. The impacts associated with the non-compliant side setback will not result in any significant impacts on the streetscape nor will they result in any unreasonable amenity impacts to neighbouring property in relation to views and privacy.

 

In addition to the above, the north western corner of the building where the non-compliant setback results the basement level is under ground and therefore, the dwelling generally reads as a two storey building when viewed from the neighbouring dwelling which softens the appearance of the building.

 

·      In relation to the northern elevation the non-compliant section is limited to the uppermost level of the wall.  The wall spans for a distance of only 8m with a third of the wall being of aluminum lourves and is non-compliant by only 245mm.  The lourves break up the solid wall and creates articulation reducing the visual bulk when viewed from neighbouring properties. Also, adequate separation is provided between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic privacy and solar access as the neighbouring dwelling at no. 21 Cairo Street which is directly opposite the site is located a fair distance from this wall.

 

The non-compliance is considered to be minor and as discussed in the relevant sections of this report will not generate detrimental privacy, view loss or shadow impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Overall, the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character and adequate area is reserved for private open space and deep soil planting on the site.

 

The proposal demonstrates a carefully composed contemporary design, with articulated wall planes to the front and sides of the building and will significantly improve the streetscape presentation and contribute to enhancing the urban environment within the locality. 

 

The proposed side setbacks of the development are considered acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the Control.

 

Sub-section 4.6 – Earthworks

 

Objectives

·     To maintain or minimise change to the natural ground levels.

·     To ensure excavation and backfilling of a site do not result in unreasonable structural, visual, overshadowing and privacy impacts on the adjoining dwellings.

·     To enable the provision of usable private open space for dwellings with adequate gradient.

·     To ensure earthworks do not result in adverse stormwater impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Controls

i)     Any excavation and backfilling within the building footprint must be limited to 1m at any point on the allotment, unless it is demonstrated that the site gradient is too steep to reasonably construct a dwelling within this extent of site modification. These requirements do not apply to swimming or spa pool structures.

 

ii)     Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear boundaries.

 

iii)    Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures, particularly where visible from the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

iv)    Where it is necessary to construct retaining walls at less than 900mm from the side or rear boundary due to site conditions, retaining walls must be stepped to follow the topography of the land. Each stepping must not exceed a maximum height of 2200mm, as measured from the ground level (existing). In this case, the retaining walls may be incorporated as part of the boundary fence.

 

v)     For sites that slope upwards to the rear with the dwelling elevated above street level, the surface area of any blank retaining walls fronting the street must be minimised. Use a combination of materials to create articulation, and/or incorporate landscaping to visually soften the wall structures.

 

vi)    Any cut and fill outside the building footprints (for the purposes of creating useable private open space) must take the form of terracing following the natural landform, in order to minimise the height or depth of earthworks at any point on the site. The appropriate extent of site modification will be assessed on a merit basis.

 

vii)   For sites with a significant slope, adopt a split-level design for dwellings to minimise excavation and backfilling.

 

viii)  For sites with a significant slope, design dwellings to minimise the height and extent of any exposed undercroft areas.

 

The proposed excavation and back fill on the site is well over 1m.  The excavation is required for the swimming pool/spa and to enable the provision of usable and functional private open space for the occupants of the site due to the significant sloping topography of the site.  Retaining walls are provided to the excavated areas to support the earthworks.  The excavation works will not result in any unreasonable privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. 

 

Appropriate conditions are included to ensure that the excavation works are properly guarded and supported to prevent the danger of life, movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings. Adequate conditions have also been included to ensure that adequate provisions are made for drainage.

 

Accordingly, the proposed backfill and excavation works are acceptable and will satisfy the objectives of the control. 

 

Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

Objectives

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

Solar access to proposed development:

       

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

 

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

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

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

 

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

 

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

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 4 Ahearn Avenue objecting to the southern side walls as it will result in additional overshadowing impacts to their north facing windows and reduce sunlight and ventilation.

 

The shadow diagrams demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the DCP solar access requirements to adjoining properties.  There are two north facing widows.  The living room window at the upper most level will not be impacted by the proposed development and only the entry hall way window on the lower ground level will be further overshadowed by the proposed development which is considered to be acceptable. 

 

Due to the topography of the site it is expected that the subject and neighbouring properties private open spaces will be impacted by the proposed development; however, the shadow diagrams demonstrate that the additional shadows are not unreasonable and parts of the rear yards will still receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight during the winter solstice between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

There is adequate separation between the properties to allow for ventilation into the living room.

 

On this basis, the additional overshadowing created by the proposed development is considered acceptable and will meet the objectives of the control.

 

Sub-clause 5.3 - Visual & Acoustic Privacy

Section 4.5 of the DCP outlines several objectives, performance requirements and preferred solutions for visual and acoustic privacy, specifically as follows:

 

P1      Overlooking of internal living areas and private open spaces of residential development is minimised through appropriate building layout, location and design of windows and balconies and, where necessary, separation, screening devices and landscaping.

 

S1      Where a direct view is available into the private open space of an existing dwelling, outlook from window, balconies, stairs, landings, terraces and decks is obscured or screened within 9m and beyond a 45-degree angle from the plane of the wall containing the opening.

 

S1      Windows have sill heights of 1.5m or more above floor level or fixed obscure glazing to any part of the window less than 1.5m above floor level.

 

a. Window and door openings

The proposed window and door openings to the dwelling are considered to be acceptable and will not result in any additional unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.  The new openings to the east of the dwelling will primarily overlook the front yards and take advantage of the ocean view beyond. Also, the privacy lourves to the northern side of the balconies on the first, second and third level will further restrict the front windows from overlooking into the rear yard of neighbouring property at no. 23 Cairo Street. 

 

The new openings to the east of the dwelling will primarily overlook the rear yard of the subject site and the sloping topography of the site restricts views into neighbouring properties. 

 

To the northern elevation privacy louveres are proposed to the window openings on the first and second floor levels which minimises overlooking into the rear yards of the neighbouring properties.  No window openings are proposed to the third level.

 

To the southern elevation privacy louveres and frosted glazing are proposed to the window openings on the first and second floor levels which minimises overlooking into the neighbouring property at no. 4 Ahearn Avenue.  Also, there are two north facing window openings to this neighbouring property.

 

To ensure the lourves provide adequate screening a condition is included requiring the lourves to be fixed and evenly spaced to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties.

 

b. Balconies/decks

Privacy lourves are proposed to the northern and southern sides of the front decks on the first, second and third levels which restricts overlooking into neighbouring properties and a condition is included requiring the privacy lourves to be fixed and evenly spaced to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties.

 

The proposal will satisfy the objectives and controls for visual privacy.

 

Sub-section 5.6 - View Sharing

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted.

 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Council’s Dwellings Houses and Attached Dual Occupancies Development Control Plan.

 

An assessment of the proposed development and its impact on views is carried out in accordance with the Land and Environment Court planning principle after Roseth SC pp.25-29 in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This assessment is guided by a four step process identified by the Land and Environment Court.

 

Step 1. “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.”

 

Planner’s comments

The subject site is located within the foreshore scenic protection area and mainly obtains views directly to the east of the ocean, horizon and Wedding Cake Island.  The views also include coastal headlands to the north and south.  The views to the north are of Shark Point, Burrows Reserve and the northern headland of Gordon’s Bay.  The views to the south-east are of Jack Vanny Reserve and the southern headland of Lurline Bay.  The views are Iconic.

 

A submission was received from the resident of no. 4 Ahearn Avenue which is opposite the subject site to the northern side objecting to the development on the grounds that it will be impacting on their views currently enjoyed. Whilst submissions were not received from 17 Cairo Street and 11 Bloomfield Street a view loss assessment has been undertaken consistent with that of the previous development for the subject site.

 

The proposed dwelling is significantly below the level of the adjoining properties to the west which obtain views to the east in a 180 angle cross the north and south and there for no further investigation is necessary for these properties.

 

Step 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.

 

4 Ahearn Ave - photographs 1 and 2

From the upper living room at 4 Ahearn, there are views north over the site to Shark Point, Burrows Reserve and the northern headland of Gordon’s Bay (refer to photo 1 below). There is also a panorama of the ocean and horizon to the north-east and east (refer to photo 2 below), which includes Wedding Cake Island.  The views are obtained from a standing and sitting position.  Depending where positioned in the room the standing and sitting views may differ slightly.

 

17 Cairo St - photographs 3 and 5

From the kitchen at 17 Cairo St, there are views south-east over the site to the Jack Vanny Reserve and the southern headland of Lurline Bay (refer to photo 3 below). From the back terrace, there is a panorama of the ocean and horizon to the east (refer to photo 5 below). The views are obtained from a standing and sitting position.

 

11 Bloomfield St - photographs 7 and 8

From the lower living room and terrace at 11 Bloomfield, there are views north-east over the site to Shark Point, Burrows Reserve, the northern headland of Gordon’s Bay, Trenerry Reserve and Wedding Cake Island (refer to photo 6 below). There is also a panorama of the ocean and horizon to the east and south-east, which includes the southern headland of Lurline Bay (refer to photo 7 below).  The views are obtained from a standing and sitting position.

 

Step 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.”

 

4 Ahearn Ave – photographs 1 and 2

Image 2 shows the extent of view loss being restricted to the western portion of the view north by the proposed development. The obstructed portion includes the northern shore-line of Gordon’s Bay. Image also shows views to Shark Point, Burrows Reserve, Wedding Cake Island, considered to be iconic views, as well as the ocean panorama to the east would remain unaffected. View-loss from this property is minor.

View-loss assessment photographs

 

Photograph 1 – Existing view north & east from the upper main living room at no. 4 Ahearn Ave

 

Photograph 2 - Proposed view north & east from the upper main living room at no. 4 Ahearn Ave

 

 

17 Cairo St - photographs 3 to 5

A comparison of photos 3 and 4 show the proposed building would partly obstruct and partly reveal a view south-east to the southern headland of Lurline Bay from the kitchen.  View to Jack Vanny reserve from the kitchen would be obstructed. The ocean panorama to the east from the back terrace would be retained as shown in photo 5. View-loss from this property is minor.

 

View-loss assessment photographs

 

Photograph 3 - Existing view south east from the kitchen at no. 17 Cairo Street

 

Photograph 4 - Proposed approximate view south east from the kitchen at no. 17 Cairo Street

 

The red hashed lines are the approximate location of the proposed development.

 

View-loss assessment photographs

 

Photograph 5 - Existing view east from the back terrace at no. 17 Cairo Street

 

P7230012

 

Note: The above photos were taken in 2008 by Council’s planning officer who was assessing the views loss for the previous design scheme under DA/831/2008. 

 

11 Bloomfield St - photographs 6 and 7

The proposed building would be present in the foreground of views from this property, but the subject property is too low to interrupt any of the valuable components of the view.

 

View-loss assessment photographs

 

Photograph 6Existing view north east from the living room at no. 11 Bloomfield Street

 

IMG_5335

 

Photograph 7 - Existing view east from the living room at no. 11 Bloomfield Street

 

IMG_5337

Note: The above photos were taken in 2008 by Council’s planning officer who was assessing the views loss for the previous design scheme under DA/831/2008. 

 

Step 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.

The proposed building would be present in many of the views and panoramas over the site.  Generally, the views enjoyed by affected properties are extensive and not exclusively over the site.  Also, those parts of the views that are affected are oblique and already partly obstructed by existing buildings.  Council requested that a height pole be erect to the south eastern corner at the front of the building on the subject site to determine the extent of impact the proposed development will have to the north facing window of the objector’s property at no. 4 Ahearn Avenue.

 

Following site inspections by Council and with benefits of the height pole, it was determined that the overall view-loss from surrounding properties would be minor and an adequate level of view sharing will be retained to the surrounding proeprties.

 

The development complies with the LEP numerical controls in relation to building FSR.  As discussed in the relevant section of this report the variation to the building height standard under Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012 is considered to be well founded as the height, bulk and scale of the development is compatible with other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood and is an appropriate design that relates to the topography and its context. A lower or smaller building would unquestionably have less impact but such changes would be unreasonable in-light of the minor impacts on views.

 

The proposed development will relates to the contours of the land and is similar in height to adjoining development. Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design.

 

The development has been carefully configured to achieve a satisfactory level of view sharing between the site and the neighbouring properties.  Accordingly, the resultant view loss impact is justified.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is located within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012.The proposed development seeks to vary the building height standard under Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012. The proposed development has merit and is considered to compatible with the height, bulk and scale of other dwelling houses in the neighbourhood. Relevant controls and objectives within Randwick DCP 2013 are satisfied and environmental impacts have been assessed as being acceptable, subject to proposed conditions of consent.  The scale and design of the proposal is considered to be suitable for the location and and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality within the foreshore area.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clause 4.3(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Height of Buildings, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clauses, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & Infrastructure be advised accordingly.

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/490/2015 for demolition of existing dwelling, construction of new four level dwelling including double garage, swimming pool and studio to rear, landscaping and associated works, at No. 5 Ahearn Avenue, South 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

 

2a.   The proposed external lourves to the side elevations shall be evenly spaced and angled to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report 5 Ahearn Avenue, South Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D21/16

 

Subject:                  21-29 Munda Street, Randwick (DA/897/2015)

Folder No:               DA/897/2015

Author:                    Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                 New advertising structure for the Munda Street Community Centre and new landscaping works including pedestrian pathways, vegetation and stone walls

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Randwick City Council

Owner:                    Randwick City Council

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview36933.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external planning consultant as the subject site is owned by Council.

 

Proposal

 

The application proposes the construction of an advertising structure to create an entrance to the Munda Street Community centre. The works include a notice board on a gabion stone block wall with a double sided display box with LED lighting for signage. The structure will be 2.59m high and constructed with timber, stone and concrete. Landscaping, paving and seating are also proposed to the east and south of the entrance structure.

 

Figure 1: Proposed development

 

 

Figure 2: Proposed signage structure

 

Figure 3: Proposed signage structure (3D)

 

Site

 

The site forms part of the Munda Street Community Centre and is known as Lot 11 in DP 1042814. The site contains the community centre, a child care centre, public playground and recreation area, village green and outdoor classroom. The signage and landscaping is proposed to the south of the community centre as identified in Figure 4 by the red arrow.

 

Figure 4: Location plan and aerial photo

 

 

Figure 5: Existing Site Plan

 

The following photographs show the location of the proposed works (existing row of trees and land south of the community centre).

 

Figure 6: View of the site from carpark looking east

 

Figure 7: View of the village green and outdoor classroom

 

Figure 8: Looking south west from the 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. No submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

Key Issues

 

·          State Environmental Planning Policy 64 – Advertising and Signage (SEPP 64)

The proposed signs are defined as an ‘advertising structure’ and ‘business identification sign’. To grant consent, council must be satisfied that the proposed signage is consistent with the objectives of the Policy under Clause 3(1)(a) and the assessment criteria in Schedule 1.

 

The objectives of the Policy under Clause 3(1)(a) are to ensure that signage and advertising:

 

“(i)  is compatible with the desired amenity and visual character of an area, and

(ii)  provides effective communication in suitable locations, and

(iii)  is of high quality design and finish.”

 

The proposed signage is compatible with the built and natural surroundings of the site. It is of a suitable scale and will provide an effective form of communication for the use of the site. The proposed materials and finishes are appropriate for the natural surrounds of the site and will complement the proposed landscaping that also forms part of the application.

 

·          Randwick LEP 2012

The subject site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposed development is classified as a building identification sign ancillary to the community centre and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

•    To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational purposes.

•    To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and compatible land uses.

•    To protect and enhance the natural environment for recreational purposes.

•    To protect, manage and restore areas with high biodiversity, ecological and aesthetic values, including buffer areas and habitat corridors.

 

The site is occupied by a community centre, child care centre and recreation areas. The proposed development includes a structure to provide a community notice board, public seating, timber pergola, timber “fencing” for display of signs and artwork, and landscaping. The proposal meets the objectives of the RE1 zone as it enhances the existing use of the land as a community centre and recreation area and will provide native vegetation suitable for the site.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

The total project cost of $114,500. Additional costs will be incurred during the next phases of the project, including the Construction Certificate, construction and operation.  Continued financial support for the project is to be allocated through Section 94 and future Adopted Management and Operational Plans.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the objectives and performance requirements of relevant State and Local planning controls. The proposal represents an economic and orderly use of the site and will deliver positive planning benefits. Therefore, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/897/2015 for new advertising structure for the Munda Street Community Centre and new landscaping works including pedestrian pathways, vegetation and stone walls at No. 21-29 Munda Street, Randwick, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance report - 21-29 Munda Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D22/16

 

Subject:                  11 Jennifer Street, Little Bay (DA/152/2015)

Folder No:               DA/152/2015

Author:                    Roger Quinton, Coordinator Development Assessment     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of all structures on site and construction of 3 storey residential flat building and multi dwelling housing development comprising 40 dwellings in three building forms, basement carparking for 56 vehicles, Torrens title subdivision  into two lots, landscaping and associated site works

Ward:                      South Ward

Applicant:               Urban Link P/L

Owner:                    Ausport International

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview76059.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was referred to the Planning Committee as the development project is more than $2 million.

 

 

Proposal

 

The application as initially submitted comprised demolition of all structures on site and construction of a three storey multi-dwelling housing development comprising 30 residential dwellings, basement car parking for 65 vehicles, landscaping and associated works. The application also sought a variation to the 9.5m maximum building height control by 928mm.

 

Amended plans were received on 22 September 2015 with the amended design comprising a three storey residential flat building and multi-housing development with 40 units in three building forms with basement parking for 56 cars landscaping, remediation and associated works. Torrens title subdivision of the site into two lots is also proposed. The amended design complies with the maximum height control.

 

Site and surrounding development

 

The subject property is located on the eastern side of Jennifer Street at the intersection with a private road providing access to St Michael’s Golf Course.

 

Vegetation covers most of the site, with the southern portion generally being vegetated with Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS). A demountable building associated with the adjacent golf driving range is partially located on the north-eastern portion of the site.

 

To the west of the site across Jennifer Street exists single dwelling development. Botany Bay National Park is to the south of the site and to the east is St Michaels Gold Course and driving range. There is a health facility for ‘Spinal Cord Injuries Australia’ to the north of the subject site.

 

The subject site viewed from the corner of Jennifer Street and the private road providing access to the adjacent golf driving range and St Michael’s Golf Course.

 

View of Jennifer Street looking south, with the subject site located to the left of the photo.

 

Site History

 

·      DA/548/2012

This DA sought consent to establish a community facility on the northern component of the site, to be used for training purposes. The DA was withdrawn on 25/5/13.

 

·      DA/614/2012

Consent was sought for construction a multi-unit housing complex of seven townhouse style dwellings on a proposed south-western allotment fronting Jennifer Street. A report submitted by the applicant prepared by Anne Clements and Associates advised that this portion of the site contained ESBS and that the development would have a significant impact on the species. The application was withdrawn on 27/5/13.

 

·      DA/547/2012

This application was for Torrens title subdivision into three allotments, construction of stage 1 of a multi-unit housing development containing 24 dwellings with basement car parking for 54 vehicles.  A Species Impact Statement (SIS) was required, detailing impacts on the ESBS present on the site. Consent to the application was refused at the Planning Committee meeting on 9/7/13 as the applicant failed to submit an SIS as required under Section 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the application was therefore deficient in information for Council to undertake the required assessment.   

 

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 amended plans were also notified to neighbouring properties. The following submissions were received as a result of the original public exhibition:

 

14 Jennifer Street

34 Reservoir Street

36 Reservoir Street

40 Reservoir Street

11 Grose Street

18 Marconi Place

22 Marconi Place

18 Dampier Street

TPG planning consultants for St Michael’s Golf Course

 

As a result of the exhibition of the amended plans, the following submissions were received:

 

14 Jennifer Street

17 Reservoir Street

34 Reservoir Street

11 Grose Street

18 Marconi Place

22 Marconi Place

18 Dampier Street

TPG planning consultants for St Michael’s Golf Course

 

Issues

Comments

Size of development is inappropriate for area

The amended plans reduced the height of the development to comply with the 9.5m height standard contained in Randwick Local Environmental Plan RLEP). The development also complies with the floor space ratio standard in RLEP. Generally it is considered that the size of the development is commensurate with the scale of development anticipated for this site by the relevant standards contained in RLEP. 

 

Impact of the development on the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub and other vegetation

 

See comments in key issues section below.

Traffic and parking impacts

The amended application is deficient in required on-site parking spaces.

 

Potential view impacts

See comments in key issues section below.

 

Inconsistencies and lack of information in application

The application is considered to be deficient in information, particularly in regard to impacts on ESBS, detail of the proposed subdivision and impacts on the operation of the adjacent driving range.

 

Proposal does not exhibit “design excellence”

The Randwick/Waverley Design Review Panel (DRP) is of the view that the design of the development shows potential, however further work is required to resolve issues with the design of the development.

 

Non-compliance with DCP controls, in particular setbacks, wall height and car parking.

Wall height and setbacks have been assessed as being acceptable, given the scale and design of the development. DCP car parking requirements are  not satisfied.

 

Bushfire management issues

This requires further resolution and needs to be addressed in a revised Species Impact Statement so that any required bushfire management measures can be considered with an assessment of the impacts of the development on the EBS.

 

Impacts from construction given excavation into rock will be necessary

Construction impacts can be controlled by conditions on the approval, if consent was to be granted.

 

Potential danger to residents of the  development from snakes as a result of location adjacent to National Park

This has not been addressed in the application and can be addressed if a further development application is submitted.

 

Lack of consultation prior to submission of DA

While it may be advisable to consult with neighbours prior to the submission of a DA, there is no legislative requirement for this to occur.

 

Basement may require dewatering; if site is drained will impact on ESBS

The development will not require dewatering. Impacts from the development in relation to the ESBS are yet to be resolved and as a consequence the application is recommended for refusal.   

 

Impact on historic water tower

The water reservoir located in Reservoir Street is not a listed State or local heritage item and any development on the subject site would not have an impact on this structure.

 

Key Issues

 

Impact on Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub

A Species Impact Statement (SIS) by Anne Clements and Associates was submitted with the DA as approximately 0.51 ha of the 1.16 ha site is covered with Commonwealth and State listed endangered Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS).  This concluded that the proposed development  “is not likely to result in a significant impact on the endangered ecological community and not likely to significantly increase the risk of extinction of Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub in the locality”.

 

The application as originally submitted was forwarded to the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) for the concurrence of the Director General. OEH responded with the following main issues with the application:

 

·      Survey methodology used in the SIS is not consistent with the recognised standardised approach and no justification for this has been provided. OEH therefore questioned the extent of ESBS on the site and is of a view that it occurs more extensively over the site than is stated in the SIS.

·      The Director-General’s Requirements (DGRs) require that the SIS considers the recovery capacity for regeneration of ESBS on the site, including the northern portion of the site where building is proposed.

·      The information in the SIS regarding fauna surveys on the site is contradictory.

·      In regard to potential bush fire impacts, a 15m bushfire defendable space (DS) incorporating a managed ESBS buffer of approximately 10m is required.  This will increase the loss of ESBS on the site as OEH does not consider that the BDS/ESBS buffer on the site should be included in the extent of ESBS remaining on the site. Advice should also be sought from the RFS on the adequacy of a 15m BDS and lack of vehicular access to the BDS.

·      OEH considers the SIS downplays the impacts from additional shading on the ESBS and that the SIS should include recommendations on excavation and construction methods to ensure there are no adverse impacts resulting from the altered hydrology on the site.

·      OEH questions how the proposed Conservation Management Plan (CMP) is to be funded or who is to be responsible for preparing and implementing it. The CMP is to be prepared in order to reduce the impacts of the proposed development on the remaining ESBS on the site.

 

The SIS was also peer reviewed for Council by Total Earth Care Pty Ltd in April 2015 in order to ascertain whether it complied with the Director General’s Requirements, the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.

 

The peer review concluded:

·      “The survey work carried out by Clements (2015) misinterpreted its data to validate the extent of vegetation communities mapped.

·      The Assessment of Significance for ESBS was not carried out with proper consideration or interpretation of the extent of ESBS on site.

·      The SIS does not attend to all the Director General’s Requirements adequately.

 

As such, it is found by Total Earth Care that the SIS (Clements 2015) is inconsistent with relevant legislation including the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the ESBS Recovery Plan, Environment Impact Assessment Guidelines, and the proposed Critical Habitat Declaration.

 

It is recommended that the SIS be rejected as invalid due to it being incomplete, incorrect and inadequate, and that it does not demonstrate that the proposal would not result in a significant impact to the Endangered Ecological Community Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub in the locality”.    

 

Further information addressing the above has been requested from the applicant on the following occasions:

 

·      Meeting with Council officers on 20/5/15;

·      Telephone conversation with assessing planner on 17/6/15;

·      By email on three occasions with the latest being 3/12/15.

 

It is noted that amended plans addressing various other issues with the development were received in September 2015, however these did not address outstanding issues in relation to the deficiencies with the SIS, therefore it is unclear if the amended design and proposed subdivision are adequate for protection of the ESBS.  

 

Requirement for preparation of Staged DA or site specific development control plan

Clause 6.12 of Randwick LEP 2012 – Development requiring the preparation of a development control plan – applies to sites with an area of at least 10,000 sqm. The subject site (prior to the proposed subdivision into two allotments) has an area of 11,612 sqm therefore this clause applies.

 

The applicant has stated that a Staged DA is not required for the following reasons:

 

·      Guidelines and controls similar to those mentioned in subclause 6.12(4) already apply to the land in accordance with DCP 2013; and

·      The development is consistent with the scale and intensity of residential development permitted on the site and is of a minor nature and is consistent with the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential zone in which the land is situated.

 

Further, the proposal will retain a majority of the site area to preserve and enhance the ESBS vegetation. The preservation of the ESBS including managed buffer area effectively reduces the overall developable area of the site to approximately 5,500 sqm, significantly less than the minimum threshold under Clause 6.12.

 

A Staged DA/Masterplan is intended to set out an integrated framework for potential land uses and development outcomes on a large site. The Medium Density controls contained in Council’s DCP are mostly suited to infill development within established residential areas given they have been designed in response to typical lot sizes and configurations associated with the prevailing subdivision patterns in the R3 Zone.  The subject site is situated adjacent to Recreation uses, National Park and Special uses with the only residential development occurring across the road in Jennifer Street. It also has two street frontages and is situated on a Crown road that is unable to provide vehicular access to the development.  In addition, it contains a substantial area of threatened species. As such, a rigorous analysis subject to a Staged DA/Site Specific DCP process would ensure that the site is developed on sound design and planning principles. 

 

It is considered that the application is deficient in critical information as Clause 6.12 of the LEP has not been adequately addressed. The site analysis submitted with the application is inadequate and it is unclear whether the proposed development parameters including bulk, scale and location of buildings on the site are appropriate to the site. Also, as discussed above, the SIS submitted with the application is deficient and potential impacts from the proposal on the ESBS are yet to be resolved – this is a critical prerequisite to the preparation of a Staged DA.

 

Proposed Subdivision

The amended plans received in September 2015 included a plan of proposed Torrens Title subdivision splitting the site into two allotments. Lot 1 would be 5,998 sqm in area and would contain the proposed residential development, while Lot 2 would be 5,614 sqm in area and would form the southern portion of the site. It appears that the subdivision is intended to protect the ESBS by excising the southern portion of the site upon which the bulk of the ESBS is located, however no information has been provided in this regard including no detail of the intended ownership or management of the new southern Lot (Proposed Lot 2).   Further information is required before the subdivision could be supported.

View Loss

The proposed development would result in some view loss for properties located to the west of the subject site. In particular, No. 40 Reservoir Street and No. 14 Jennifer Street would be impacted by the proposed development. Views towards the coast and of the ocean would be impacted.

 

To allow for a detailed analysis of these impacts it would be necessary to erect height poles so that the extent of the proposed building could be clearly ascertained. However, as the proposal is recommended for refusal being deficient in information in relation to impacts on ESBS, it was considered unnecessary at this stage to require the erection of height poles. The form of the development may require further alteration in order to adequately limit impacts on the ESBS. Any view loss impacts would require detailed analysis at that time.

 

It is noted that No. 40 Reservoir Street would retain some coastal views across the private road to the coast and No. 14 Jennifer Street would retain some views to the coast over the southern portion of the site with the development in its current form. However, as stated above, the acceptability of these impacts would require more detailed analysis when all required information for proper assessment of the development has been received.

 

Mitigation of impacts from golf driving range 

The proposed development is located immediately adjacent to Cullen’s Golf Driving Range to the east. The Driving Range is associated with St Michael’s Golf Course.  The application does not address how impacts from stray golf balls are to be mitigated. Generally, other driving ranges have high fences on their boundaries in order to control stray golf balls. No detail of any such fencing or other control features has been provided.  

 

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 Species Impact Statement (SIS) submitted with the application was reviewed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and also peer reviewed for Council by Total Earth Care (TEC). Both OEH and TEC questioned the methodology and conclusions contained in the SIS. This has been communicated to the applicant on numerous occasions with no response. As a result, Council cannot ascertain whether the impact of the proposed development on the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub (ESBS) located on the site is acceptable or whether further changes to the form of the development will be required in order to limit impacts on the ESBS. As this issue has not been adequately resolved a detailed assessment of other outstanding issues has not been completed, for example potential view loss impacts from surrounding properties. In addition, inadequate detail has been provided of the proposed subdivision and also of how potential impacts resulting from the close proximity of the golf driving range will be mitigated. The application does not adequately address Clause 6.12 of RLEP (Development requiring the preparation of a development control plan). 

 

The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Sections 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/152/2015 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a 3 storey residential flat building and multi dwelling housing development comprising 40 dwellings in 3 building forms, basement car parking, Torrens title subdivision into 2 lots and associated works at No. 11 Jennifer Street, Little Bay, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The applicant has failed to submit an adequate Species Impact Statement, required under Section 78A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, to enable Council to assess the impact of the development in the presence of an identified threatened ecological community, as defined by the Threatened Species Conservation Management Act, 1995.

2.       The application is accompanied by insufficient information for Council to proceed with assessment against Section 79B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, requiring Council to obtain concurrence from the Director-General of the Office of Environment and Heritage.

3.       The application is accompanied by insufficient information for Council to make an adequate assessment against Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, as it relates to the natural environment, site suitability and the public interest.

4.       The application does not adequately address Clause 6.12 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and a Staged Development Application/Site Specific DCP has not been submitted.

5.       The application is accompanied by insufficient information for Council to make an assessment pursuant to Section 111(4) of the EPA ACT 1979, requiring Council to consider the proposal and any effect on a threatened ecological community. 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 11 Jennifer Street, Little Bay

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D23/16

 

Subject:                  54 Marine Parade, Maroubra
(DA/801/2015)

Folder No:               DA/801/2015

Author:                    Christopher Gorton, Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Construction of roof level viewing deck above unit L3-01 by amending approved development consent DA/277/2014

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mkd Architects Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Ideal Marine Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview29334.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposal involves a request for an exception to the height of buildings development standard by greater than 10%.

 

1.     Proposal

 

The proposal is for the construction of roof level viewing deck above unit L3-01 by amending approved development consent DA/277/2014. The proposal incorporates an internal stairwell and 1.6m high balustrades.

 

Figure 1: Proposed rooftop terrace

 

2.     Site

 

The site is located on the western side of Marine Parade. The land has a frontage of 24.385m to Marine Parade; a total site area of 1625m² and the site is relatively flat. The site is landlocked to the north south and west.

 

An approved 4 storey (with basement car park) development is partially constructed and is present on site. To the north are several 3 storey multi-unit developments, to the south is a two storey dwelling house and 4 storey multi-unit developments. To the west are several two storey dwelling houses and attached dual occupancies.

 

The locality is occupied by a mixture of housing options, comprising of dwelling houses, dual occupancies and multi-unit developments.

 

Figure 2: Subject site

 

Figure 3: Subject Site

 

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

 

Maximum Building Height Control

Clause 4.3(2) states that the maximum height of buildings on the subject site is 12m. The proposal is inclusive of a building height of 14.15m.

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

 

4.3 (2)

Height of buildings

12m

14.15

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

17.9% (2.15m) variation.

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

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

 

·           It is acknowledged that the proposal is substantially setback from the property boundaries in an attempt to reduce its perceived mass from the adjoining properties and streetscape; however the proposed 1.6m high balustrades are considered excessive and unnecessary. As such a condition has been recommended to reduce the balustrades to the minimum BCA compliant height of 1m. At a height of 1m, the balustrades will almost be totally hidden from view as a result of the large setbacks from the edges of the building; in addition any visible portion of the balustrade will be indiscernible from the built form.

 

The proposed stairwell sits 2.6m above the existing roof form, again this height is considered unnecessary and can be reduced to minimise any perceivable bulk resulting from the structure. A condition has been recommended reducing the stairwell height by 300mm;

 

·           It is considered that the proposal subject to recommended conditions will not result in a visually obtrusive or dominant element when viewing the development as a whole. It is substantially setback from the edges of the building and will not be perceived as obtrusive elements within the architectural character of the development of the streetscape character.

 

Figure 4: Red Square shows proposed stairwell location (including recommended 300mm reduction

 

·           It is not considered the proposed roof terrace will result in any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of the immediately surrounding developments in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing or views.

 

The setback assists with preventing overlooking to the immediately adjoining northern, western and southern neighbours. There is existing mutual overlooking between the subject site (particular the top floor unit of the subjects site with No.60-62 Marine Parade to the south and the northern adjacent rooftop terrace). Visual privacy of properties within the immediate vicinity is protected by the separation distance from the proposed rooftop terrace and the affected windows and balconies.

 

Figure 5: View to the south west

As seen in figure 5 above, the roof top terrace is separated by approximately 24m from the affected windows at No. 60–62 Marine Parade and the internal setback from the building edge prevents downward overlooking to the adjoining properties rear private open space.

 

Figure 6: Top – View from proposed rooftop deck, Bottom – View from existing approved 4th floor window.

 

As seen in figure 6 above, there will be mutual overlooking to the north between the proposed rooftop terrace and the adjoining rooftop terrace, the mutual overlooking already exists between the approved 4th floor windows and the existing roof top terrace at No. 52 Marine Parade.

 

·           As stated previously the proposed structures (subject to recommended conditions) will not be discernible when looking at the development from the streetscape or the foreshore area. 

 

Figure 7: View from public reserve to the south-east of the site (stairwell highlighted in red)

 

·           As seen in figures 4 and 7 previously the stairwell structure (which is the element that protrudes above the roof line the most) is indiscernible from the foreshore area and streetscape and will not result in a structure that is visually bulky.

 

Figure 8: red line indicates 1m high balustrade

 

As seen in figure 8 above a 1m high clear balustrade (indicated by the red line) which is what has been recommended as part of this report will be unobtrusive when viewing the development and will not add any significant visual bulk to the development.

 

·           As seen in figure 9 and 10 below (submitted plans), the proposal will not result in any significant visual bulk and scale being added to the existing building.

 

Figure 9: Front Elevation on the left and rear elevation on the right

 

 

Figure 10: North Elevation on top and South elevation on the bottom

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

·      To enable other land uses that 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.

 

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives that are relevant because it has been designed to not be non-obtrusive and indiscernible from the public domain and will not adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding properties.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary in this case, for a roof top terrace for exclusive use of unit L3-01, the proposal does not compromise the amenity of surrounding residential areas and is compatible with the dominant character of existing development.

 

4.     Submissions

 

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

 

·      62 Marine Parade, Maroubra (No unit number provided)

·      1 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      40 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      21 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      6 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      27 Banks Street, Maroubra

·      15 B Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      2-4 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      Wilson Street, Maroubra (No house number provided)

·      2/62 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      10/62 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      62 Marine Parade, Maroubra (No unit number provided)

·      8/50 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      50 Marine Parade, Maroubra (Strata Managers)

·      23 Banks Street, Maroubra

·      12/62 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      8 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      25 Banks Street, Maroubra

·      3/52 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      15a Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      15 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      52 Marine Parade, Maroubra (On behalf of the building)

·      1/52 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      12/44 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      14/44 Marine Parade, Maroubra

·      20/44 Marine Parade, Maroubra

 

The issues raised in the above objections are as follows:

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the Randwick LEP 2012:

Planners Comment

The proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives and controls within the RLEP 2012. It is acknowledged that the proposal exceeds the maximum allowable Building Height for the site, however it is considered that the submitted Clause 4.6 Exception to Development Standard details is justified and that the strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary in this case as the proposal meets the objectives of the RLEP 2012 and will not adversely impact on the adjoining properties or streetscape.

 

·      The building size is out of character with the surrounding area:

Planners Comment

The subject application is for the rooftop terrace/viewing deck and as such the assessment pertains to the proposed additions only. The proposed rooftop terrace and associated balustrade and stairwell subject to recommended conditions will be indiscernible when viewed from the streetscape and public domain. The increase setbacks of the structures from the side boundaries and streetscape means that they barely visible and will not result in significant additional bulk being attributed to the approved development. The proposal is considered to be acceptable with regards to its sitting within the streetscape and will not result in adverse impacts on the adjoining properties or the streetscape character.

 

·      The proposal does not comply with the maximum height control outlined in the RLEP 2012:

Planners Comment

It is acknowledged that the proposal exceeds the maximum height control outlined in the RLEP 2012; however a Clause 4.6 exception to development standards has been submitted. See discussion above.

 

·      The proposal will set an undesirable and unnecessary precedent for the area:

Planners Comment

The proposal is considered acceptable and meets the relevant objectives and controls in the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013. The proposal is not considered to set an undesirable precedent in the area, any applications lodged to council are subject to assessment under the relevant heads of consideration of Section 79C of the Ep&A Act.

 

·      The proposal seems to avert the usual planning controls:

Planners Comment

The subject application has been lodged as an amending Development Application, the proposal whilst exceeding the Maximum Building Height control outlined in the RLEP 2012, has been accompanied by a Clause 4.6 exception to development standard. Correct procedure has been followed and the proposal is subject to assessment against the relevant controls and objectives of the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013.

 

·      The proposal will result in adverse overshadowing:

Planners Comment

The proposal will not result in any additional overshadowing on the adjoining property. The proposed shadowing will fall over the approved developments roof form; this is a direct result of the stairwell being setback substantially from the edges of the approved development. In addition to the above a condition has been recommended reducing the height of the stair well by 300mm.

 

·      Will adversely affect the privacy of the surrounding properties:

Planners Comment

The proposed rooftop terrace is substantially setback from the edges of the approved development reducing the potential for overlooking to occur, in addition the proposal is substantially separated from adjacent and windows preventing direct overlooking. See Discussion in Key Issues section below for breakdown of RDCP 2013 privacy controls.

 

·      Will result in a development that exceeds the F.S.R of the site:

Planners Comment

The proposed rooftop terrace will not result in any additional G.F.A on site. The proposal will retain the approved F.S.R of the previous development.

 

·      Concerns raised with regards to not being notified of the development:

Planners Comment

The proposal was notified in accordance with the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 – Public Notification. The extent of the properties notified is consistent with the requirements of Council’s DCP.

 

·      The proposal will not meet the objectives of Clause 6.7 relating to the Foreshore scenic protection area in which the site is located:

Planners Comment

The subject site is located within the RLEP 2012 identified Foreshore Scenic Protection Area, the proposed roof top terrace, including the balustrade and associated stairs will have minor visibility from the foreshore area, they are considered minor protruding elements and will not adversely affect the foreshore scenic protection area. Notwithstanding the above a condition has been recommended to reduce the height of the balustrade to the BCA minimum of 1m and reduce the stairwell height by 300mm, this will further result in the structures being indiscernible when viewed from the surrounding foreshore area. It is considered that the proposal meets the relevant objectives of Clause 6.7 of the RLEP 2012.

 

·      Notification plans and submitted documentation are insufficient to properly assess the impacts:

Planners Comment

Documentation placed on Council’s Online DA Tracking system is limited to the included Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE), notification plans, shadow diagrams and development application form/checklist. There is a working file available at Council offices which contains a copy of all documentation submitted. It is considered that the documentation submitted with the application is sufficient and an accurate and thorough assessment can be carried out.

 

·      Concerns with regards to acoustic privacy, recommends that Council require an acoustic report be submitted:

Planners Comment

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density Residential, the approved RFB is a permissible use within the zone, the proposed rooftop terrace is only accessible from one unit. It is considered that an Acoustic Report is unnecessary and the proposal will not result in any significant adverse acoustic impacts on the surrounding properties.

 

4.     Key Issues

 

4.1   Roof Design & Visual Privacy

Clause 4.2 of Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 relates to roof design; it states the following in relation to rooftop terraces:

 

Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof may be considered only if:

·      There are no direct sightlines to the habitable room windows and private and communal open space of the adjoining residences.

·      The size and location of terrace or deck will not result in unreasonable noise impacts on the adjoining residences.

·      Any stairway and associated roof do not detract from the architectural character of the building, and are positioned to minimise direct and oblique views from the street.

·      Any shading devices, privacy screens and planters do not adversely increase the visual bulk of the building.

 

Planners Comment

 

·      It should be noted that there is existing mutual overlooking between the top floor northern windows of the subject site and the immediately adjoining rooftop terrace to the north, as well as distant overlooking (24m approximate separation) between the top floor southern windows and the northern windows of No. 60-62 Marine Parade.

 

The proposed rooftop terrace will not result in an increased impact on these properties, with building separation and increased setbacks from the subject developments edges helping to mitigate the potential impacts. The proposed rooftop terrace is setback substantially from the edges of the subject building to prevent downward overlooking into the adjoining properties rear private open space; this can be seen in figures 11-13 below.

 

Figure 11: View to the north from the edge of the rooftop terrace

 

Figure 12: View to the south-west from the edge of the rooftop terrace

 

 

 

Figure 13: View to the south from the edge of the rooftop terrace

 

It is considered that the roof top terrace will not result in any significant increase in privacy impacts on the surrounding properties.

 

·      The rooftop terrace is only accessible from the top floor unit L3-01 and will not be utilised as a communal open space. It is considered that there will be no adverse noise impacts on the adjoining properties as the proposed rooftop terrace is for the singular residential use.

·      The proposed stairwell which has been recommended to be reduced in height by 300mm will not detract from the architectural character of the building. It has been substantially setback from the streetscape and side boundaries to reduce its visibility; it will be indiscernible when viewing the development from the streetscape and foreshore area. As seen in figure 12 the staircase element of the development will remain visually subservient to the development and will not be a dominating element within the design.

 

Figure 14: Red indicates stairwell – Photo taken from south-east of the development in foreshore reserve

·      There are no shading devices or privacy screens proposed as part of this development application.

 

It is considered that the proposed rooftop terrace meets the relevant objectives and controls with regards to Clause 4.2 of Part C2 of the RDCP 2013.

 

4.2   Visual Privacy

Clause 5.3 of the RDCP 2013 relates to visual privacy, the objectives of this clause are:

 

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

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

 

As discussed previously the proposed rooftop terrace has been substantially setback from the edges of the subject development to prevent downward overlooking into the primary POS of the adjoining and surrounding properties. In addition to this there is substantial separation between the proposed development and surrounding sites to assist with the prevention of direct overlooking. Previous figures 5,6,11,12 and 13 all detailed the views obtained from the proposed rooftop terrace, as seen in these figures the proposed development has been well considered and designed to minimise the potential for adverse visual privacy impacts from occurring.

 

The proposal maintains the existing levels of amenity for the surrounding properties, the proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives and controls in the RDCP 2013.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant or unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The proposal remains within the bounds of the objectives of the Medium density zone and the Medium Density Residential DCP.

 

The application is recommended for approval, subject to the below recommended 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 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to height of buildings, on the grounds that the proposed development complies with the objectives of the above clause, and will not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, and that the Department of Planning & 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/801/2015 for the construction of a roof level viewing deck above unit L3-01 by amending approved development consent DA/277/2014, at No. 54-56 Marine Parade, 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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A-2.01

Mkdarchitects

30/10/2015

A-2.02

Mkdarchitects

30/10/2015

A-3.01

Mkdarchitects

30/10/2015

A-3.02

Mkdarchitects

30/10/2015

A-3.03

Mkdarchitects

30/10/2015

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.  The 1.6m glass balustrades surrounding the ‘view decking’ shall be reduced to a maximum height of 1m, measured from the finished roof level.

b. The height of the stair well shall be reduced by 300mm to a maximum height of RL35.400.

c.  This Development Consent amends, where relevant the conditions issued under DA/277/2014 inclusive of the modifications.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/801/2015 - 54-56 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D24/16

 

Subject:                  46 Torrington Road, Maroubra (DA/77/2013/A)

Folder No:               DA/77/2013/A

Author:                    Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                        Section 96 modification of approved development by extension of third level terrace with awning and additional photovoltaic cells on roof

                                Original consent: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a 3 level dwelling with garage and associated works

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Archebiosis Design

Owner:                    Ms M K MacNamara

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

http://wnadm10:8084/eview/output/eview38970.png

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

Details of current approval:

Demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a three-level dwelling with garage and associated works.

 

Details of proposed modification:

Section 96 modification of approved development by an addition to the third level, associated awning covered terrace and additional photovoltaic cells on the roof. The changes are highlighted on fig. 1 below.

Figure 1. Snapshot of the proposed south-western (street) elevation. Modifications highlighted with yellow hatching.

The proposed modification will require an amendment to condition 1 of the original consent.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Torrington Road, close to its intersection with Inman Street. The surrounding area contains a variety of dwelling styles, including detached and semi-detached dwellings. Reasonably large two-storied dwellings are the predominant character along this section of Torrington Road.

 

The subject site has a slight slope down from its front to rear boundaries and from its north-eastern to south-eastern side boundaries.

 

The subject site previously contained a now demolished part-two, part-three level dwelling. The originally approved dwelling has been partly constructed on the site (refer fig. 2 below).      

Figure 2. Photo of the frontage of the subject site (taken October 2015) - the originally approved dwelling is under construction.

 

A consent (ref: DA/931/2014) was approved in May 2015 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and garage and construction of a new part-two part-three storey dwelling house at the site to the south-east, being 48 Torrington Road. The consent is yet to be implemented, but remains valid. The applicant has shown the outline of the dwelling approved for 48 Torrington Road in relation to the subject site (fig. 3 below).


Figure 3. Snapshot from the application plans showing the outline of the dwelling approved for the neighbouring site (48 Torrington Road), in relation to the proposed dwelling on the subject site (left).

 

Application History

 

After the approval of the original consent (DA/77/2013), the applicant obtained another consent (ref: DA/235/2014) for the development. This consent authorised an amendment to the approved development consisting of a new rear elevated pool, internal reconfiguration, changes to window openings on elevations, new solar panels on the roof, changes to the front landscape area and driveway gradient, and an increase to the building height.

 

The applicant originally applied to modify DA/235/2014. However, it was decided post-lodgement that the currently proposed modifications related to the original consent, being DA/77/2013.

 

Key Issues

 

Section 96 Assessment

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

 

Substantially the Same Development

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development and for the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. It is considered that the application remains substantially within the scope of the original development.

 

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:

43 Torrington Road, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

1.   Did not object to original development application even though they had streetscape design concerns, thought the original design of third level provided relief.

2.   Concerned that third level study addition will create a harsh, solid and bulky frontage elevation. Concerned at associated height infringement.

3.   Concerned that amendment is premeditated over-development of the site by stealth.

See “key issues” discussion below.

39 Torrington Road, Maroubra

Issue

Comment

1.   Rear upper-level terrace to cause visual privacy issues.

2.   Will not meet the wall height or setback requirements of the RCDCP 2013, or the max. height requirement of the RLEP 2012.

3.   Height non-compliance will generate “impacts” and will therefore not satisfy the relevant objectives.

The objector’s property is diagonally across the road from the subject site and will not be significantly overlooked.

 

See “key issues” discussion below.

 

Non-Compliant Wall Height – Sub-Section 3.2

The approved south-eastern wall height of 9.5m is proposed to be increased to 9.72m. This is non-compliant with the 7m high maximum wall height required by Sub-section 3.2 of the RCDCP 2013. 

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will generate significant adverse impacts. Although the proposed modification does not significantly increase the approved south-eastern wall height of the dwelling, it removes articulation and moves it closer to the site’s south-eastern boundary. The wall will not meet the required 1.5m side setback at upper-level and will match the 900mm setback of lower levels - this will create a high and unarticulated façade and a feeling of dominance when viewed from the adjoining site. Further, the modified wall height and position will remove some articulation when viewed from the street.  

 

The applicant’s supplied shadowing diagrams generally show an indiscernible change to the shadowing situation between the approved development and the proposed development.  

 

Non-Compliant Side Setback – Sub-Section 3.3.2

The south-eastern side setback to part of the second storey is to be 900mm. This is non-compliant with the 1.5m minimum side setback required by Sub-section 3.3.2 of the RCDCP 2013.

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will generate significant adverse impacts. The predominant character within the immediate area is for complying setbacks at upper floor level. This includes the approved development at 48 Torrington Road and the north-western side of the subject dwelling.

 

The non-compliant setback will not contribute to articulation on the south-eastern wall of the dwelling as it will align with the lower levels - this will create a high and unarticulated façade, particularly when viewed from the adjoining site, and will not contribute positively to the articulation and stepping of the building in relation to the topography and character of the street (refer fig. 3 above). As discussed in the wall height assessment above, the unarticulated and non-compliant wall and side setback will create a feeling of dominance when viewed from the site to the south-east. Further, the side setback contributes to visual privacy impacts (see discussion below).

 

The infringing component of the wall will also result in both wall height and maximum height non-compliances, both of which will result in a higher building than the approved dwelling on the lower site to the south-east (refer fig. 3 above).

 

The originally approved building has been designed to comply with the side setback control in relation to the north-western boundary. This design included differing external wall lines and does not align the upper-level wall over the wall line of the lower levels. Therefore, construction methodologies/materials and the wall layout should not prevent compliance in relation to the south-eastern side boundary. A compliant side setback would not alter the ability of the upper-level to provide for the internal amenity of future occupants as just a 600mm internal width reduction from that proposed would be required to obtain a compliant setback.  

 

Non-Compliant Visual Privacy – Sub-Section 5.3

The proposal involves the enlargement of the rear upper-level terrace. The applicant has proposed a 1.8m high privacy screen to 1.5m of the south-eastern side of the terrace (to mirror the privacy screen on the north-western side). Approximately 1.5m of the terrace will be unscreened and could overlook bedroom and study windows on the dwelling on the adjoining site to the south (refer fig. 4 below).   This is non-compliant with the visual privacy requirements of the RCDCP 2013.


Figure 4. Snapshot of approved north-western elevation of the neighbouring development at 48 Torrington Road. Habitable room windows which could be overlooked by the enlarged deck are circled in red.

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will generate adverse impacts. The proposed screening is inadequate for the size of the enlarged deck and the proposed modification moves the deck closer to the site’s south-eastern boundary. Therefore, the development is not minimizing overlooking and cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwelling (as the objective of Sub-section 5.3 requires). Additional privacy screening or revising the position of the deck back to its original alignment, could maintain a reasonable level of privacy.      

 

Section 79C Assessment:

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

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

The proposal is inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

The following clauses of RLEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Zone R2 – Low Density Residential

The site is zoned Low Density Residential R2 under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The proposed modification is inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposal will not preserve the amenity of the surrounding environment or protect the amenity of adjoining residents (refer “key issues” discussion).

 

Height of Buildings

The proposed modification will infringe the 9.5m maximum height control of clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2013 by a maximum of 223mm as it relates to the 9.72m high roof of the study (solar panels are considered to be ancillary attachments and are not included within building height measurements).

 

The proposed height infringement is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RLEP 2012 and will result in significant environment impacts. In particular, the proposed modification will move high and unarticulated bulking bulk closer to the site’s south-eastern boundary. The part of the building that is proposed to infringe the height control is also non-compliant with the wall and side setback controls of the RCDCP 2013. The proposed modification will result in a higher building than the approved dwelling on the lower site to the south-east (refer fig. 3 above). Therefore, the proposed modification will create a feeling of dominance when viewed from the site to the south-east and will not contribute positively to the articulation and stepping of the building in relation to the topography and character of the street.  

 

Floor Space Ratio

The proposal will comply with the floor space ratio control of the RLEP 2012.

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (Clause 6.7 of the RLEP 2012) and the development will satisfy the relevant criteria. In particular, the design and external finishes of the proposed dwelling is comparable to existing dwellings within this part of the coastal environment. Further, the dwelling will not be highly visible from the coastal environment.     

 

Development Control Plans

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013)

Relevant sections from the RDCP 2013 are discussed within the “key issues” section of this report.

 

Other Environmental Impacts – Section 79C(1)(b)

 

The proposal will result in no other environmental impacts, beyond those already highlighted within the “key issues” discussion above.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP and Council policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in development that is substantially the same nature as the previously approved works. The modified development will result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity of the locality (particularly for adjoining residents) and will be inconsistent with the relevant objectives and criteria of the LEP 2012 and the RCDCP 2013.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/77/2013/A by the modification of condition 1 to extend a third level terrace with awning and additional photovoltaic cells on roof. Consent is refused for the following reasons:

 

1.   The proposed modification is deemed to be inconsistent with the low density residential R2 objectives of the RLEP 2012

2.   The proposed modification is non compliant with the maximum wall height control of the RCDCP 2013

3.   The proposed modification is non compliant with the side setback control of the RCDCP 2013

4.   The proposed modification is non compliant with the visual privacy controls of the RCDCP 2013

5.   The proposed modification is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013

6.   The proposed modification would result in a design that significantly adversely impacts both the amenity enjoyed by adjoining residents and the amenity and character of the streetscape.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D25/16

 

Subject:                  3 Mears Avenue, Randwick (DA/494/2015)

Folder No:               DA/494/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy to create residential flat building with 3 units including new second floor, demolition of the existing garage, construction of a new double garage with trafficable roof, new bin store, landscaping and associated works (Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Lombardo Design Studio

Owner:                    The Owners - Strata Plan No. 68206

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=09a44261-0a68-4bc5-805e-95662815dcce&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy to create residential flat building with 3 units including new second floor, demolition of the existing garage, construction of a new double garage with trafficable roof, new bin store, landscaping and associated works

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as 3 Mears Avenue, Randwick and formally described as Lot B DP373244. The lot is a rectangular shaped allotment with a single street frontage at Mears Avenue. The subject site dimensions comprise of a northern (Mears Avenue) and southern (rear) boundary of 13.92 metres and an eastern (side) boundary of 24.535m and a western (side) boundary of 24.595m. The subject site has a site area of 342sqm.

 

Neighbouring to the building to the west is the 'Randwick Lodge' which is an existing three storey and identified as a heritage item (1287), to the east is an existing two storey residential flat building, to the south (rear) is an existing single storey dwelling house, to the north, on the opposite side of Mears Avenue is an existing row of two storey attached dwellings.

 

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:

 

153 Belmore Road, Randwick

Issue

Comment

The proposal will contribute to unreasonable amenity impacts to the objectors’ premises and is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

The amenity impacts to the objectors premises has been assessed and the proposal will not contribute to significant adverse environmental impacts to the objectors premises. The proposal will continue to comply with the solar access and overshadowing requirements in providing the required three hours to the rear private open space and the north-facing windows during the early morning between 8-9 and 2-4 in the afternoon. Suitable conditions of consent have also been included to improve the visual and acoustic privacy to the rear neighbour in particular from the first floor rear terrace and the upper floor level will contribute to any recognisable view loss impacts to the objectors’ premises. 

The proposal is not in keeping with the significance of the heritage conservation area.

Refer to Council’s Heritage Planner’s comments within the Executive Summary Report.

The objector is concerned that the common areas have been excluded from the calculation of gross floor area.

In accordance with the definition of ‘gross floor area’ of the RLEP2012, areas of common vertical circulation and void areas are excluded from the calculation of gross floor area.

The proposal does not comply with the maximum permissible external wall height requirement of 8 metre as prescribed within the RDCP2013.

Noted. Refer to Key Issues for further details.

The landscape open space is well below the minimum requirement of 50% of the site as prescribed within the RDCP2013.

Noted. Refer to Key Issues for further details.

The permeable landscaping is less than 25% of the site area as prescribed within the RDCP2013.

Noted. Refer to Key Issues for further details.

The proposal does not comply with the minimum rear setback of 5 metres as prescribed within the RDCP2013.

Noted. Refer to Key Issues for further details.

The proposal does not comply with the minimum parking requirements of the RDCP2013. The submitted application does not include a parking and traffic study to accommodate the short fall in the number of parking spaces.

 

 

 

A traffic report should be submitted as part of the application to ensure adequate turning manoeuvrability into the designated car spaces at the rear of the subject site.

Noted. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the shortfall in off-street parking and advised that the site currently provides 1 off-street carspace within the existing garage at the rear of the property providing parking for one of the existing two units, hence there is an existing parking deficiency of 1 space.

 

The proposal seeks to remove the existing garage and the construction of a new double garage at the rear of the building. This will cater for the additional demand created by the new 2 bedroom unit.

The proposed trafficable deck on top of the proposed garage will result in direct overlooking into the objectors premises in particular the north-facing windows and the rear principle outdoor recreation spaces.

The proposal includes the installation of a 1.6 metre high privacy screen located on the southern edge of the terrace which will minimise any downward overlooking views into the north-facing habitable room windows or the principle outdoor recreation spaces. 

The proposed plants and balustrading on top of the garage roof will result in additional overshadowing to the objectors rear yard.

Noted. A condition of consent has been included to setback the privacy screening and any associated balustrading an additional 2.9 metres from the southern edge of the terrace. The increased setback will ensure that any shadowing cast from the proposed privacy screening will fall on the subject site.

The new upper floor level will cast shadowing to the objectors clothes drying area and does not promote environmental sustainability.

The new upper floor addition will cast additional shadows on the communal clothes drying area during the morning period only and will continue to receive uninterrupted direct solar access at noon. The controls for solar access and overshadowing do not indicate any specific provisions in maintaining direct solar access to clothes drying areas. Notwithstanding this, the occupants have ample areas of private open space to accommodate for clothes drying.

The submitted shadow diagrams are not prepared by an accredited shadow diagram certifier.

The lodgement of a development application does not require shadow diagrams to be prepared by an accredited shadow diagram certifier. The submitted shadow diagrams have been checked and an independent shadow analysis has been carried out by Council in order to assess the true extent of shadowing impact to the affected neighbours.  

The raised deck located on top of the proposed garage will result in adverse acoustic noise impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposed planting provided on the edges of the deck are not adequate in minimising acoustic privacy to the neighbouring dwellings.

Noted. A condition of consent has been included that the depth of the rear first floor terrace and associated balustrading/privacy screen shall be reduced by 2.4 metres as measured from the southern edge of the terrace. A reduction by an additional 2.4 metres will allow for a residual terrace depth of 2 metres for private open space (compliant with the RDCP2013) as well as accommodate additional steps to the lower level of the terrace to RL65.11. The inclusion of the above condition will restrict its size in being used for outdoor entertainment purposes and provide greater separation to the habitable room windows and private outdoor open space to the objectors premises in providing a reasonable level of acoustic amenity to the objectors premises.

 

The proposed planting located on the edges of the rear first floor level terrace is not a design consideration for acoustic absorption. The planting on top of the garage structure is relevant in order to soften the visual bulk of the rear garage structure.

 

 

4 Mears Avenue, Randwick

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal is not in keeping with the significance of the heritage conservation area.

The subject application has been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Planner who has advised that the proposed alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy development including new upper floor level will not adversely impact on the streetscape contribution of the existing building, nor detract from the heritage significance of the adjacent heritage items. It is noted that the proposed face brick parapet will better integrate the upper level with the interwar character of the building and reduce the impact on its contributory value.  It is noted that many Interwar residential flat buildings feature low pitched parapeted roofs, so that the proposed parapet will relate to the architectural style and character of the building.  

The proposal is not of any particular aesthetic value and does not positively contribute to the appearance of the streetscape.

The new upper floor addition positively contributes to the streetscape value given the introduction of a timber cladding to the external walls of the new upper level introduces a lightweight material which contrasts with the masonry finish of the lower floor levels. Furthermore, the varied use of materials and finishes to the upper floor level to the external walls, blade walls, glass balustrading and aluminium screens articulates the building in creating visual interest as seen from the neighbouring dwellings and the streetscape.    

 

It should also be noted that the proposed first floor addition has been sensitively designed to adopted a similar building layout as the existing building and will remain in character with the form and massing of the existing development. It will not be out of character from the streetscape and will not contribute to any excessive visual bulk and scale impacts from Mears Avenue. 

The bulk and scale of the three storey development is incompatible with the existing two storey buildings within the streetscape. 

Refer to External Wall Heights under Section Key Issues. An assessment has been carried out on the test of compatibility in accordance with the Planning Principle of Project Venture Developments Pty. Ltd. V Pittwater Council

The proposal will result in additional amenity impacts including direct solar access, visual privacy and outlook into the objectors premises.

The proposal will not result in any additional overshadowing impacts to the objectors premises.

 

The new upper floor addition will maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy to the objectors premises given it is located on northern side of Mears Avenue and comprises of a significant building separation of approximately 24 metres between the subject site and the objectors premises.

 

The protection of sky views does not constitute a view that consists of either iconic or water views that are visible from the subject premises.

The proposal does not comply with the minimum parking requirements of the RDCP2013. The submitted application does not include a parking and traffic study to accommodate the short fall in the number of parking spaces.

Noted. Council’s Development Engineer has reviewed the development application and has no objections to the non-compliance to the off-street parking requirements.

 

The site currently provides 1 off-street car space within the existing garage at the rear of the property providing parking for one of the existing two units, hence there is an existing parking deficiency of 1 space. The proposed development will remove the existing garage and provide a new garage containing two spaces. The 1 space parking deficiency currently being experienced by the site is acceptable given it will result in a similar shortfall as the existing development.

The proposed development does not contribute to housing affordability to the existing streetscape.

The proposal does not involve the inclusion of housing affordability and does not seek to propose any new development under the State Environmental Planning Policy for Affordable Rental Housing 2009.

 

5 Mears Avenue, Randwick

Issue

Comment

The new second floor level will result in direct overlooking into the objectors premises.

Noted. A condition of consent has been included that the external screen located in front of the second floor east facing bedroom no. 1 window that the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen and be tilted in an angle that does not result in any direct overlooking into the private open space and habitable room windows of the rear adjoining dwelling.

The new second floor deck fronting Mears Avenue will result in direct overlooking into the objectors premises

The new upper floor level deck fronting Mears Avenue will not contribute to any significant visual privacy impacts to the objectors premises. The new deck adjoining the living/kitchen/dining is immediately adjacent to the balcony of the objectors premises and will only result in oblique overlooking given the new deck is located a storey above and the existing gable/skillion roof pitch of the objectors premises will minimise any downward views into the proposed balcony. Similarly, the position of the deck will also provide oblique overlooking only into the habitable room window given it is set further forward than the first floor window opening and does not provide a direct and immediate sightline into the affected window. 

The roof top terrace on top of the garage at the rear of the building does not include the installation of a privacy screen on the eastern edge and does not minimise any privacy impacts to the objectors premises.

Noted. A direct sightline from the rear first floor level terrace to the west facing rear first floor deck is available, however in considering the objectors rear balcony is visible from the rear laneway at Don Juan Avenue, it is unreasonable that visual privacy should be sought to protect an open space that is visible from the public domain. Consequently, the protection of visual privacy is unnecessary in this instance.    

The roof top terrace and associated structures will contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development and the impact is exacerbated given it breaches the rear setback control.

Refer to Key Issues for further details.

The raised deck located on top of the proposed garage will result in adverse acoustic noise impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

Noted. A condition of consent has been included that the proposed terrace above the garage is to be setback an additional 2.9 metres from the southern edge of the terrace. The inclusion of the above condition will restrict its size in being used for outdoor entertainment purposes and provide greater separation to the habitable room windows and private outdoor open space to the objectors premises in providing a reasonable level of acoustic amenity to the objectors premises.

The roof top terrace exceeds the minimum requirements for private open space in accordance with the RDCP2013 and can accommodate for an increased number of occupants given its significant size.

 

The terrace is also located in close proximity to a number of private open spaces of adjoining properties.

Refer to above.

The submitted application does not include any details of new mechanical plant and equipment.

The proposal does not include the installation of any new mechanical plant and/or equipment that may be visible from the existing streetscape.

The bulk and scale of the three storey development is incompatible with the existing two storey buildings within the streetscape. 

Refer to External Wall Heights under Section Key Issues. An assessment has been carried out on the test of compatibility in accordance with the Planning Principle of Project Venture Developments Pty. Ltd. V Pittwater Council.

The proposal includes a number of inconsistencies within the submitted statement of environmental effects.

Noted. An assessment has been carried out on the submitted plans.

 

Key Issues

 

·      Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Rear garage structure with terrace above

The proposal includes the demolition of an existing single garage located on the south-eastern corner of the site with the construction of a new double garage with terrace above south of the subject site. The intent of the above is to increase the number of off-street parking spaces that are generated by the proposed development as well as provide for a dedicated private open space to the occupants of the first floor level. The new garage structure results in a number of breaches to the Council controls within the RDCP2013 including the following:

 

·      The garage/terrace results in a breach of the rear setback requirement of 5 metres.

 

·      Terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof are only acceptable forms of development if the terrace does not contribute to any direct visual sightlines to the neighbouring dwellings; does not contribute to adverse noise impacts; does not detract from the architectural integrity of the building and does not negatively contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development. In considering the current proposal:

 

The rear structures (including the garage, terrace above and privacy screening) will contribute to the visual bulk of the development given it is approximately 4 metres above the ground level existing and set 1.7 metres from the rear boundary.

The size and scale of the terrace is considerable in size at approximately 19sqm and will contribute to additional noise impacts in particular given it is located immediately adjacent the principle outdoor recreation space of the southern neighbour.

 

The new garage structure and terrace above is generally acceptable given it adjoins other similar sited and sized garage structures that front the rear lane along Don Juan Avenue. Further, the amenity impacts to the adjoining neighbours can be alleviated by reducing the height of the garage and terrace to RL65.11 and in addition to the garage being partially located below the existing ground level will remain of a similar height as the garage structures to the immediate adjoining neighbours at no. 153 Belmore Road and 5 Mears Avenue.

 

To minimise the noise acoustic impacts of the proposed outdoor terrace a reduction in the trafficable deck area and providing a greater building separation will improve the acoustic noise impacts to the rear neighbour. A condition of consent has been included that the depth of the rear first floor terrace and associated balustrading/privacy screen shall be reduced by 2.4 metres as measured from the southern edge of the terrace. A reduction by an additional 2.4 metres will provide a residual terrace depth of 2 metres for private open space (in accordance with the RDCP2013) as well as accommodate additional steps to the lower level of the terrace. This will provide a compliant private open space area to the first floor level occupants, provide ample building separation of 4.6 metres to the principle outdoor recreation space of the southern neighbour and limit its capacity to be used as an outdoor entertainment area. Consequently, the following conditions have been included as part of any development consent:

 

The finished floor level of the rear first floor terrace and the garage roof must not exceed RL65.11. The floor to ceiling heights of the garage shall be amended accordingly prior to the issue of a construction certificate. Suitably sized stairs shall be constructed to provide access from the first floor dining/kitchen room to the terrace level. The associated privacy screening shall not exceed 1.6 metres as measured from the finished terrace level and shall be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

To maintain a reasonable level of acoustic privacy to the adjoining dwellings, the rear first floor terrace and associated balustrading/privacy screening shall be setback an additional 2.4 metres from the southern edge of the terrace. A planter box of approximately 1 metre shall be provided on the eastern, southern and western edges of the deck.

 

Landscaped Open Space

The controls prescribe a minimum of 50% (171.2sqm) of the site area be provided as landscaped open space. The proposed development does not comply with Council’s controls and will result in a substantial departure with 27% (93.16sqm) of the site area as private open space. The non-compliance to the numerical requirements is acceptable given the proposal will comply with the objectives of the RDCP2013 for landscaped open space. Each apartment provides ample private open space that is compliant with the requirements of the RDCP2013 that will accommodate the outdoor recreation activities for the occupants. In addition to this, the proposal will continue to provide a distribution of landscaped open space within the front setback and western portion of the dwelling, the driveway along the eastern side of the building will remain as existing and the new garage structure involves replacing a similar garage structure located at the rear of the building. In considering the above, the numerical non-compliance to the landscaped open space is acceptable given the general compliance with the objectives for landscaped open space.

 

Deep Soil Area 

The current proposal does not comply with the soft landscaping requirements with 15% (50.59sqm) of the site provided as soft landscaping less than the minimum requirements at 25% (85.6sqm). The reduction in the amount of soft landscaping is considered acceptable given the works will generally comply with the objectives of the Randwick Development Control Plan for deep soil which is as follows:

 

·      To provide landscaped open space of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

·      To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

·      To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity

·      To improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design.

 

The reduction in the areas for deep soil will not be inconsistent with the above objectives given each occupancy is afforded an area for private open space that is suitably sized to accommodate the outdoor recreational activities for the occupants comply with the RDCP2013 requirements; the reduction in permeable landscaping is limited to the rear of the building and will reintroduce soft landscaping sporadically and evenly distribute green spaces throughout the site; suitable conditions of consent have been included by Council’s development engineering that stormwater be discharged (by gravity) either directly to the kerb and gutter in front of the subject site to Mears Avenue or to a suitably designed infiltration system and finally the reduction in soft landscaping will not compromise the quality of the landscape design from the existing streetscape given the works are located at the rear of the subject site. In considering the above, the departure to the numerical requirements for soft landscaping are acceptable given general compliance is achieved to the objectives of the RDCP2013.

 

Communal Open Space

The Council controls require that communal open space for residential flat buildings is of a sufficient contiguous area and not divided up for allocation of individual units. The proposal does not comply with the Council requirements given that the development results in 17.9sqm (5%) of communal open space on site.

 

However, the guidelines advise that on smaller allotments it may be difficult to provide for communal spaces. In considering the allotment size and the small number of apartments proposed, the preference should be given on ensuring that adequate private outdoor spaces are provided which are usable and can accommodate the recreational needs of the occupants. The development provides ample areas of private open space with terraces provided to the ground floor units and balconies with a minimum depth of 2 metres to accommodate the upper floor units.  Notwithstanding this, demonstrating compliance with the communal open space requirements would not result in a better planning outcome given it would compromise the quality of the private open spaces and would be to the detriment to the availability of off-street parking.

 

In considering the subject sites nominal site area, the small no. of units, the provision of off-street parking and the sites incapacity to provide for communal open space, on balance, the necessity in providing a greater private open space to each unit would better serve the needs of the residents than a subservient communal area. 

 

External Wall Heights

The residential flat building comprises of an external wall height of 9.2 metres as measured from the existing ground level to the top most portion of the hipped roof. The Council controls allow for a maximum wall height of 8 metres, should the maximum permissible building height within the RLEP2013 be 9.5 metres. The development results in a breach of the maximum permissible external wall height by 1.2 metres (13%) over the wall height requirements. 

 

The residential flat building comprises of an external wall height of 9.3 metres as measured from the existing ground level to the top most portion of the roof parapet. The Council controls allow for a maximum wall height of 8 metres, should the maximum permissible building height within the RLEP2013 be 9.5 metres. The development results in a breach of the maximum permissible building height requirements with an external wall height of 1.3 metres (16%) over the wall height requirements. Subsequently, an assessment must be carried out on the objectives of external wall heights as outlined within the RDCP2013.

 

·      To ensure that the building form provides for interesting roof forms and is compatible with the streetscape.

 

Comment: The test of compatibility within the existing streetscape is evident within Project Venture Developments Pty. Ltd. V Pittwater Council. The planning principle for compatibility of the urban environment involves a two stage assessment:

 

Are the proposal’s physical impacts on the surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the surrounding development potential of surrounding sites.

 

The physical amenity impacts to neighbouring developments can be assessed with relative objectivity in considering potential planning impacts including visual and acoustic privacy, solar access and overshadowing, view loss and bulk and scale – all of which constrain ‘development potential’. The proposed development does not result in any significant overshadowing impacts to the adjoining neighbour and suitable conditions of consent have been included to ensure the development will provide a reasonable level of privacy to the neighbouring dwellings within particular regard given to the elevated terrace level. The non-compliance to the external wall height will not result in any view loss impacts in particular to the western neighbour and the development is not considered to be excessive in visual bulk and scale given it will retain a similar three storey scale as the immediate adjoining western neighbour at no. 211-215 Avoca Street. The sloping nature of the development from the intersection of Avoca Street and Mears Avenue to the east will also minimise the perceivable visual bulk and scale of the development and does not appear out of character with the current scale of the existing streetscape. In considering the above, the physical impacts on the surrounding development are acceptable in considering the compatibility of the streetscape.  

 

Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street.

 

The planning principles outline that the most important contributing factor to urban character and the surrounding urban spaces is the relationship between building envelope elements including building height, setbacks and landscaping.

 

Firstly, the planning principle explicitly advises that building heights do not have to be the same to be compatible and that consideration can be given to gradual increases in building height to adjoining buildings. The development is considered to be a gradual increase in building height and will largely retain a compatible building height to the western neighbour with a reduced level as measured from the upper most portion of the hipped roof form at RL72.25 which will remain of a lower building height than the rear building block of the ‘Randwick Lodge’ at RL73.05. The scale of the development is appropriate in particular when considering the dominant parapet level of the western neighbour at no. 5 Mears Avenue at an RL71.14. The form and massing of the development is acceptable given it will continue to respect the topography of the site and the sloping nature which falls from west to east along Mears Avenue. The new upper floor unit addition will remain consistent with the building heights of the neighbouring buildings and will not be out of character with the existing streetscape. In considering the above, the physical impacts on the surrounding development are acceptable and will continue to remain compatible with the existing streetscape.

 

Secondly, the setbacks are also contributory to the built form character and the compatibility of the streetscape. The new upper floor addition is setback further than the existing front building alignment and does not encroach within the front setback that has been established by the adjoining dwellings within the streetscape. Similarly, the proposal will retain the side setbacks of the existing building and will continue to comply with the minimum side setback requirements of the RDCP2013. The new garage and terrace breaches the rear setback control, however this component of the built form does not compromise the external wall height control. The garage/roof terrace is acceptable given it adjoins other similar sized and dimensioned structures located at the rear of the dwelling and suitable conditions of consent have been included to minimise the visual bulk and scale and amenity impacts of the development.

 

Finally, providing ample landscaped areas also contributes to the compatibility in the urban environment. Whilst the proposal does not comply with the minimum landscaped open space requirements of the RDCP2013 it is acceptable given the development accommodates for private open space to accommodate the outdoor recreation needs of the occupants; conditions of consent have been included to increase the pervious surfaces to the site and reduce the extent of stormwater run-off to the neighbouring dwellings and the minor changes to the landscape provisions to accommodate a new double garage structure is acceptable given the structure adjoins other similar sited and dimensioned garage structures located at the rear. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that the development will comprise of similar ratio of built and unbuilt portions of landscaped areas to the adjoining developments including the immediately adjoining neighbours at no. 5 Mears Avenue and 211-215 Avoca Street.

 

In considering the above, the development complies with the Land and Environment Court Planning Principles for compatibility within the existing streetscape and will generally remain consistent with the scale and density in the context of the surrounding area.

 

·      To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces

 

Comment: The new upper floor addition will comply with the above objective given it demonstrates compliance with the numerical requirement with a floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres above the finished floor level as prescribed within the RDCP2013.

 

·      To control the bulk and scale of development and minimise the impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of overshadowing, privacy and visual amenity. 

 

Comment: The proposed development does not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the adjoining neighbours having regard to the key issues and areas of non-compliance sections of this report including Solar Access and Overshadowing and Visual Privacy. In addition to this the development will not compromise any existing views given there are no recognisable views consisting of either iconic or water views are visible from the subject premises.

 

Solar Access and Overshadowing

The Council controls prescribe a minimum of three hours of direct solar access must be provided to the north-facing windows and the private open space of the immediately neighbouring dwellings between the hours of 8am – 4pm on the 21 June. The new upper floor addition will contribute to additional overshadowing impacts to the direct southern neighbour at no. 153 Belmore Road. Council have carried out calculations on the proposed overshadowing impacts to the southern neighbour as a result of the new upper floor addition and concludes the development will provide a reasonable level of shadowing to the adjoining neighbour. The north-facing windows and principle outdoor recreation spaces will continue to receive the required three hours of solar access between the early morning periods of 8am – 9am and in the afternoon between the hours of 2pm – 4pm. The new upper floor addition will comply with the numerical requirements in providing the minimum of three hours of direct solar access.  

 

Heritage

Council’s Heritage Planner has provided the following assessment:

 

·      Internal changes

At ground and first floor levels, it is proposed to reduce the number of bedrooms from 3 to 2.  At ground floor level it is proposed to reinstate the original recessed front balcony.  At first floor level it is proposed to enlarge living areas.  Evidence of the original layout and any remaining original ceilings should be able to be retained through the use of beams denoting the line of the original walls, and appropriate consent condition should be included.  The original stairway is also to be removed and the lobby area reconfigured.  The original stairway comprises terrazzo stair treads, herringbone tiled landings and decorative metal handrails.  There appears to be some scope for retention of original elements including step tiles and terrazzo, as recommended in the Statement of Heritage Impact.  An appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

·      External changes

External changes are proposed to the east (entry) side elevation and the rear elevation.  On the rear elevation, an enlarged opening is to be provided at first floor level in order to provide access to a roof deck above the proposed garage.  There are no heritage objections to proposed change to the rear elevation.  On the side elevation, the original entry door, stair window and a large area of brickwork are to be replaced by a new entry with open landing above and louvered panels.  The original side entry comprises a pair of reeded glass double doors with concrete hood and surround.  There are concerns that proposed changes will result in considerable loss of original fabric concentrated around the side entry.  There appears to be some scope for retention of original elements including the side entry door, as recommended in the Statement of Heritage Impact.  An appropriate consent condition should be included. 

 

·      Replacement of existing garage

The existing garage comprises a simple skillion roofed structure.  There are no heritage objections to the demolition of the existing utilitarian structure. 

 

·      Upper level addition

To the west of the site, the heritage items on the corner of Avoca Street are set considerably higher due to the fall of the site.  The eaves line of the rear wing of the heritage items is around 2m higher than the eaves line of the subject building.  The eaves and parapet lines of the main building are substantially higher.  To the east of the site, the Federation residential flat building has a parapet line over 2m higher than the eaves line of the subject building.  The eaves line of the second level addition will be around 1m higher than the adjacent buildings, but will be set back from the street. 

 

The second level addition will comprise two bedrooms and open planned living areas, set back from the front wall of the existing building by between 2.8 and 3m.  The proposed roofed front balcony is to be reduced in depth to 2.2m deep balcony with an increased set back from the edge of the wall below of between 500mm and 700mm.  The balcony is to be enclosed by a fibre cement sheet balustrade and a small perimeter planter.  The existing hipped roof is to be removed and the proposed 400mm high rendered parapet replaced by face brickwork.  The second level addition is to have timber clad walls and a low pitched corrugated metal roof. 

 

The rendered parapet band originally proposed is to be replaced by reused face bricks from the wall of the entry which is to be removed.  Although it appears that hard mortar joints have been used, it is hoped that the bricks can be successfully cleaned for reuse.  A string course should be provided between existing and reused brickwork, and a brick on edge or matching metal capping.  New mortar joints are to match the existing red tinted ironed joints.  An appropriate consent condition should be used in relation to detailing of brickwork and mortar joints.  The proposed face brick parapet will better integrate the upper level with the interwar character of the building and reduce the impact on its contributory value.  It is noted that many Interwar residential flat buildings feature low pitched parapeted roofs, so that the proposed parapet will relate to the architectural style and character of the building.  The increased set back of the roofed balcony will reduce the dominance and streetscape impact of the second level addition.  There are concerns that the proposed white painted fibre cement balustrade will draw attention to the upper level and a consent condition should be included requiring the balustrade to be painted in a recessive colour which will relate to the colour of existing brickwork.  The proposed planting in the perimeter planter has not been included in the landscape plan for the development and an appropriate consent condition should be included to ensure the viability of the proposed planting.  Subject to consent conditions to proposed development will not adversely impact on the streetscape contribution of the existing building, nor detract from the heritage significance of the adjacent heritage items. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed boarding house development generally satisfies the controls and objectives of Part C2: Medium Density Residential within the RDCP2013. The proposal will not contribute to any unreasonable adverse impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and will generally remain in keeping with the character of the local area and · the existing developments within the streetscape. Non-standard conditions of consent have been. included to address the roof terrace to ensure  it does not result in any significant overshadowing, visual and acoustic privacy impacts to the adjoining neighbours.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council as the consent authority, grant development consent under Section 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/494/2015 for alterations and additions to the existing dual occupancy to create residential flat building with 3 units including new second floor, demolition of the existing garage, construction of a new double garage with trafficable roof, new bin store, landscaping and associated works (Heritage Conservation Area) at 3 Mears Avenue, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a.     The privacy screen located on the southern and western edges of the new terrace 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 provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

b.      The total area of any openings within the external screen located on the second floor east and west facing bedroom window opening must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Alternatively, the screen may be tilted in an angle that does not result in any direct overlooking into the private open space and habitable room windows of the neighbouring dwellings.

 

c.      The bin storage room located forward of the front building alignment shall be relocated adjacent the southern boundary and to the east of the rear footpath adjoining the garage. Any soft landscaping that will impede on the location of the bin storage room shall be deleted.

 

d.      The works shall include the installation of two new bicycle racks within the communal courtyard on the south-western portion of the subject site. The bicycle racks must be sited which does not impede pedestrian access in entering and exiting the common areas.

 

e.      The finished floor level of the rear first floor terrace and the garage roof must not exceed RL65.11. The floor to ceiling heights of the garage shall be amended accordingly prior to the issue of a construction certificate. Suitably sized stairs shall be constructed to provide access from the first floor dining/kitchen room to the terrace level. The associated privacy screening shall not exceed 1.6 metres as measured from the finished terrace level and shall be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

f.      To maintain a reasonable level of acoustic privacy to the adjoining dwellings, the rear first floor terrace and associated balustrading/privacy screening shall be setback an additional 2.4 metres from the southern edge of the terrace. A planter box of approximately 1 metre shall be provided on the eastern, southern and western edges of the deck.

 

g.      To maintain adequate levels of stormwater infiltration on site, the brick pavers to the driveway shall be constructed of permeable pavers or similar. The plans are to be amended to demonstrate compliance with this requirement prior to the issue of a construction certificate.

 

h.      A projecting string course should be provided between existing and reused brickwork, in order to provide a clear separation between the original walls and the new parapet.  A brick on edge capping or metal capping to match the colour of the brickwork is to be provided to provide a traditional finish to the top of the parapet.  Amended drawings are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

i.       New mortar joints to the new parapet are to match the red tinted ironed joints of the existing walls. 

 

j.      The balustrade to the new second floor front balcony is to be painted in a recessive colour which will relate to the colour of existing brickwork.  An amended schedule of materials and finishes are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

k.      The original reeded glass double doors to the side entry are to be retained if possible, as recommended by the Statement of Heritage Impact, rather than replaced by a single side entry door, in order to retain a greater proportion of original building fabric which is part of the contributory value of the building. 

 

l.       The original terrazzo step treads and risers are to be retained if possible, as recommended by the Statement of Heritage Impact, rather than replaced, in order to retain a greater proportion of original building fabric which is part of the contributory value of the building. 

 

m.     The proposed planting in the perimeter planter is to be included in the landscape plan for the development in order to ensure the viability of the proposed planting. 

 

n.      New services in the original areas of the apartments are to be provided within the wall cavities, or if this not possible, to be surface mounted, rather than chased into existing walls, to minimise impact on the original fabric. 

 

o.      Cornices are to be retained where openings are made in internal walls to preserve the integrity of retained ceilings. 

 

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

 

q.      Details of the proposed paint scheme are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  Unpainted surfaces, eg- brickwork/stonework are to remain unpainted, and no applied finishes are to be used.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report 3 Mears Avenue, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                    8 March 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D26/16

 

Subject:                  JRPP - 180-188 Maroubra Rd, Maroubra (DA/813/2015)

Folder No:               DA/813/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Introduction

 

Council is in receipt of a development application seeking consent for demolition of all existing structures, construction of shop top housing development comprising 8 storeys to Green Street and 7 storeys to Maroubra Road. The development is proposed to contain two retail tenancies fronting Maroubra Road and one fronting Green Street, 69 apartments, 3 levels of basement car parking for 100 vehicles, landscaping and associated works.

 

Issues

 

Council is in receipt of a development application seeking consent for demolition of all existing structures, construction of shop top housing development comprising 8 storeys to Green Street and 7 storeys to Maroubra Road. The development is proposed to contain two retail tenancies fronting Maroubra Road and one fronting Green Street, 69 apartments, 3 levels of basement car parking for 100 vehicles, landscaping and associated works.

 

The application is referred to the Joint Regional Planning Panel for determination, pursuant to Schedule 4A, of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Part 4 of State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011. The development has a capital investment value in excess of $20 million.

 

The proposal has been subject to a pre-lodgement meeting held between the applicant and the Council officers on the 24 September 2015. A number of issues were raised regarding the future development of the site which included compliance with the relevant planning provisions including maximum permissible building height limit, number of storeys, building use, side setbacks from the western boundary, building articulation, building envelope, building depth, solar access, natural ventilation, floor to ceiling heights and universal and adaptable housing requirements. Council’s Development Engineer also raised issues including the car park layout, traffic generation and road widening.

 

The development application was publicly exhibited, advertised within the local newspaper and site notification attached to the subject premises as per the requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP2013) for Public Notification. The application was formally notified between the periods on the 2 December to the 16 December 2015 with a total of six objections received. The objections include the non-compliance to the number of storeys, side setbacks, building separation, building depth, natural ventilation, building envelope, traffic and parking, waste generation, inconsistencies with the submitted statement of environmental effects and an overdevelopment of the site.

 

The application was referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) as per the requirements of State Environmental Planning Policy 65: Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development and a number of outstanding issues were raised with the application. The issues included lack of quality commercial space fronting Green Street and Maroubra Road, lack of direct solar access to the communal courtyard at level 00, non-compliance with the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) requirements for common circulation spaces and visual privacy, lack of detailed information included on the submitted plans, lack of deep soil areas provided to the communal courtyard area, unachievable natural ventilation given the number of ‘snorkel’ apartment layouts, inappropriate floor to ceiling heights, inconsistencies with the submitted plans and adverse amenity impacts associated with the excessive building density.

 

The arrangement of the built form consists of a U-shaped building footprint that is a nil setback from the external walls of the western neighbour and then setback approximately 4.3 metres from the western boundary as it extends beyond the building alignments of the western neighbour. The building configuration and the setbacks from the western boundary distributes the building mass to the building blocks fronting Maroubra Road and Green Street. The result is a disproportionate visual bulk and scale to the adjoining buildings which is contributed by a non-compliant number of storeys to Maroubra Road and Green Street, lack of setback from the upper floor levels to the front building alignment, inadequate floor to ceiling heights and the façade detailing is incompatible with the appearance of the neighbouring buildings. The proposal does not comply with the specific block-by-block controls as prescribed by the Randwick Development Control Plan (RDCP2013). 

 

In terms of amenity impacts, the building configuration will also result in extensive overshadowing to the communal courtyard area and does not comply with the ADG requirements. The developments provides nil direct solar access and is well below the minimum of 50% of direct sunlight be provided to the principal usable part of the communal open space of a minimum of two hours between 9am and 3pm on the 21 June. In addition to this, the proposal does not provide a reasonable level of visual privacy to the occupants within the building or satisfy the design guidance for common circulation spaces.

 

The application includes a request under Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standard given the development results in a breach to the maximum building height development standard of 25 metres. The proposal will result in a breach to the building height development standard which is limited to mostly to the lift overruns on the northern, western and southern building blocks as well as the roof top elements on the building. The applicant’s request under Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards is not well founded given the additional height in conjunction with the additional storeys being sought results in a building that will have a size and scale that is inconsistent with the desired future character of the town centre.

 

The overall design scheme is not considered to be compatible with the adjoining buildings and is not considered to be one that is envisaged by the development controls within the RDCP2013. The current proposal does not achieve compliance with many of the key objectives and performance criteria as per the relevant development assessment criteria including the SEPP 65 requirements, the RLEP2012 and the RDCP2013 and is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:              Excellence in urban design.

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

 

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The subject application for the demolition of all existing structures, construction of shop top housing development comprising 8 storeys to Green Street, 7 storeys to Maroubra Road with 2 retail tenancies fronting Maroubra Road and 1 fronting Green Street, 69 residential dwellings, 3 levels of basement car parking for 100 vehicles, landscaping and associated works is not supported and is recommended for refusal.

 

The development does not appropriately consider the relationship of the building envelope controls contained within the RLEP2012 and the RDCP2013 and the non-compliances to the Council’s controls including the maximum building height, number of storeys, the number of storeys to building height, the reduced setbacks from the street edge, the reduced setbacks from the western boundary, the building depth and the inadequate floor to ceiling heights all contributes to an overdevelopment to the site. The site configuration seeks to concentrate most of the bulk through the centre of the building blocks and does not appropriately consider the built form controls within the Council policy controls and the envisagement of a particular height and density outcome that is expected on the subject allotment.

 

The Clause 4.6: Exceptions to the development standards is also not supported by Council on the basis that the proposed development also results in a significant breach to the maximum number of storeys. The exceedance by one storey along Maroubra Road and three storeys along Green Street results in an increase to the overall building height and the plant rooms, roof elements and roof parapet above the maximum building height limit further exacerbates the intended building height.

 

In terms of amenity impacts, the building configuration will also result in extensive overshadowing to the communal courtyard area and does not comply with the ADG requirements. The proposal provides no direct solar access and is well below the minimum of 50% of direct sunlight be provided to the principal usable part of the communal open space of a minimum of two hours between 9am and 3pm on the 21 June. The building configuration will also compromise the amount of direct solar access, natural daylight and ventilation to the habitable room windows that are set up to the western boundary, does not provide a reasonable level of privacy to the occupants within the building and common circulation spaces.  

 

In considering the above, the application has been recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That the Joint Regional Planning Panel as the responsible authority refuse its development consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) to Development Application No. DA/813/2015 for the demolition of all existing structures, construction of shop top housing development comprising 8 storeys to Green Street, 7 storeys to Maroubra Road with 2 retail tenancies fronting Maroubra Road and 1 fronting Green Street, 69 residential dwellings, 3 levels of basement car parking for 100 vehicles, landscaping and associated works for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the B2 Local Centre zone relating to urban design and amenity of residents.

 

2.       The proposal exceeds the maximum building height of 25m 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 does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 3D-1 Communal Open Space of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

4.       The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 3E-1 Deep Soil Zones of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

5.       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.

 

6.       The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 4A Solar and Daylight Access of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

7.       The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 4B Natural Ventilation of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

8.       The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 4C Ceiling Heights of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

9.       The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria and design guidance set-out in Part 4F Common Circulation Spaces of the Apartment Design Guide as per SEPP 65.

 

10.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Building Envelope set-out in Clause 3.1.3 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part D4.

 

11.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Building Height set-out in Clause 3.1.4 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part D4.

 

12.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Building Depth set-out in Clause 3.1.5 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part D4.

 

13.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for the Block 08 set-out in Clause 3.2.8 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part D4.

 

14.     The proposed development is unacceptable in that the proposed height, bulk, scale, built form and design will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and is incompatible with the desired future character and existing scale of development in the Maroubra Junction Town Centre.

 

15.     The proposal does not address the requirements of land contamination in accordance with the provisions of SEPP 55, Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 and Council’s Contaminated Land Policy 1999. 

 

16.     The proposed the floor levels do not comply with Council’s flood planning requirements (1%AEP level plus 500mm freeboard).

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

JRPP Report - 180 - 188 Maroubra Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover