RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 12 July 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                                                                                                     12 July 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, 12 July 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 - 14 June 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)

 

Planning Matters

 

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

 

 

D53/16     1/14-20 Gardeners Rd, Kingsford (DA/204/2016)................... 1

D54/16     16 Coogee Street, Randwick (DA/853/2013/A)..................... 15

D55/16     20 Wentworth Street, Randwick (DA/194/2016)................... 23

D56/16     104 Gale Road, Maroubra (DA/821/2015) ............................ 31

D57/16     20 Moore Street, Coogee (DA/551/2015)............................. 39

D58/16     29 Dolphin Street, Randwick (DA/333/2015)........................ 83

D59/16     120 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/308/2015).......................... 111

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting NOT required)

M3/16       Report for variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 13 May - 30 June 2016........................................ 145    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 July 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D53/16

 

Subject:                  1/14-20 Gardeners Rd, Kingsford (DA/204/2016)

Folder No:               DA/204/2016

Author:                    Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Fit out and use of vacant ground level tenancy as Japanese Relaxation Massage Clinic with associated signage.

Ward:                      West Ward

Applicant:               Mrs T Toyoshima

Owner:                    Pioneer Investment Holding Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it proposes to use the premises for massage purposes.

 

Proposal

 

The applicant proposes to fit out and use the vacant ground level tenancy as a Japanese Relaxation Massage Clinic. The clinic is to contain four massage rooms, a reception and waiting area, kitchenette, shower and toilet. A single vinyl sign is proposed to the street front door of the shop.

 

Note: The Council’s officer raised concerns about the originally proposed internal layout, which included a massage room at the street frontage. It was considered that this design would have resulted in an obscured shop frontage and a lack of interaction between the street and the interior of the tenancy. The applicant subsequently redesigned the interior layout to include a waiting area at the street frontage.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Gardeners Road, near its intersection with Bunnerong Road. The site contains a part eight storey with mezzanine/part four storey development comprising 72 boarding house rooms, three ground level retail tenancies and eight car park spaces, 15 motorcycle spaces. The tenancy that is the subject of this application is the eastern-most tenancy located at ground floor level facing Gardeners Road. The tenancy is approximately 72m2 and it has previously been consented for retail use.

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the frontage of the subject site. The subject shopfront tenancy can be seen on the right.

 

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

 

Referral Comments – NSW Police – Crime Risk Assessment Report

Constable Andrew Carter of the NSW Police has provided a Crime Risk Assessment Report on the application. Constable Carter has made a number of crime risk minimisation recommendations. A condition of consent is recommended to require the implementation of these recommendations.

 


 

Nature of the Use

The subject application seeks to provide massage services. The proposal seeks hours of operation from 10am to 9pm, Monday to Sunday. 

 

The applicant has provided copies of their qualifications, and a condition of consent has been recommended to ensure that any new staff members must provide copies of the relevant massage qualifications to Council for record keeping purposes prior to commencing any massage services.

 

It is considered that the proposal is for a legitimate massage use and not for the provision of sexual services or the like and meets the relevant objectives and controls of the RLEP 2012 an RDCP 2013.

 

Section 79C Assessment:

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

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The site is zoned Local Business B2 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent.

 

The proposal will promote the specific objectives of the zone by enhancing employment opportunities and servicing the needs of local and regional residents thereby ensuring the commercial viability of the town centre. It will also protect the amenity of residents in the neighbouring residential zones.

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

Refer to paragaphs below

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

The proposal generally satisfies the RCDCP 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 environmental impacts of the proposed development on the natural and built environment, which are otherwise not addressed in this report, are discussed in the paragraphs below.

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

There were no submissions.

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

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

 

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012)

There are no specific development standards of the RLEP 2012 that are applicable to the proposal.

 

Development Control Plans

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013)

Kingsford Centre – D2

In regards to the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013, the proposal does not seek any modifications to the external built form of the existing building and the proposal involves the use of a tenancy for a commercial activity compatible with the area. The shop front façade of the tenancy will remain visually open – allowing for visual interaction and visual interest for pedestrians.

 

The proposed hours of operation are compatible with the existing commercial and mixed-use context. The location of the subject site is well serviced by frequent public transport, onsite parking is available and traffic generation and parking demand will be comparable to the consented retail use of the tenancy. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to meet the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013.

 

Outdoor Advertising and Signage – F2

A 0.64m2 business identification sign is proposed on the front door of the tenancy. It is deemed to comply with the relevant controls of Part F2 of the RCDCP 2013. In particular, the sign is for business identification purposes, is small relative to the size of the shop front and the door, and it does not obscure architecture features or details of the building.

 

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

The proposal will generally provide for a commercial activity while preserving the amenity of the surrounding environment. The proposal will be compatible with the character of the locality and is not an unexpected outcome within the context of the site. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal will generate no significant adverse environmental impacts.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal has been assessed against the 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 proposal will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality and will be not inconsistent with the relevant objectives and criteria of the RLEP 2012 and the RCDCP 2013.

 

Further, it is considered that the proposal is for a legitimate massage premises and not for any form of sexual service use. The proposal is therefore 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/204/2016 for the fit out and use of vacant ground level tenancy as a Japanese Relaxation Massage Clinic with associated signage, at 1/14-20 Gardeners Rd, Kingsford subject to the following conditions:

 

Development Consent conditions:

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A.01.1 to A.01.3

Superdraft

17 June 2016

A.03.1

Superdraft

17 June 2016

A.07.1

Superdraft

17 June 2016

 

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

2.       The development must in undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of the NSW Police Force’s “Crime Risk Assessment” of the development received by Council on 27 April 2016. Details shall be provided at the construction certificate stage, to the satisfaction of the certifying authority.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

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

 

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

 

Sydney Water

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

Building Code of Australia & Fire Safety

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

 

5.       In existing buildings, the following works are to be carried out to ensure minimum levels of fire safety (as applicable) to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority:

 

·           Any new or replacement ceilings walls and floor linings and doorways are required to satisfy the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia. 

 

·           Any residential parts of the building must be provided with a smoke detection and alarm system, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

 

·           Any residential part/s of the building are to be suitably fire-separated from the commercial area encompassed in this development application.

 

Details of the abovementioned items and other building and fire safety works are to be included in the construction certificate.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

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

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Regulatory Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Public Utilities

7.       The applicant must meet the full cost for telecommunication companies, gas providers, Ausgrid, and Sydney Water to adjust/repair/relocate their services as required.  The applicant must make the necessary arrangements with the service authority.

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

 

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

 

Building Inspections

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

 

Permitted Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

Internal work only within a commercial or industrial development, located in a commercial or industrial zone, which is not audible within any residential dwelling or commercial or industrial premises

·   Monday to Saturday - No time limits (subject to column 1)

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Construction Site Management, Public Health & Safety

10.     Public health, safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition and building works and the following requirements must be complied with at all times (as applicable):

 

a)     A sign must be provided and maintained in a prominent position throughout the works, which contains the following details:

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

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

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

 

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

 

c)      A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.  For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

d)     Building materials, sand, soil, waste materials, construction equipment or other materials or articles must not be placed upon the footpath, roadway or nature strip at any time and the footpath, nature strip and road must be maintained in a clean condition and free from any obstructions, soil and debris at all times.

 

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

 

f)      During construction, sediment laden stormwater run-off shall be controlled using the sediment control measures outlined in the manual for Managing Urban Stormwater – Soils and Construction, published by Landcom, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

g)     Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to any demolition and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted. If necessary, a temporary safety fence or hoarding is to be provided to protect the public. Temporary site fences are to be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible.

 

If it is proposed to locate any site fencing, hoardings or items upon any part of the footpath, nature strip or any public place, a Local Approval application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Health, Building & Regulatory Services department beforehand. Details and plans are to be submitted with the application, together with payment of the weekly charge in accordance with Council’s adopted Pricing Policy.

 

h)     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents.

 

The requirements and practices contained in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and relevant DECC Construction Noise and Vibration Guidelines are to be satisfied and a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan is to be developed and implemented throughout the works to the satisfaction of Council.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

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

 

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

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, Street Verge

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Fire Safety Certificate Requirements

14.     Prior to issuing an interim or final Occupation Certificate, a single and complete Fire Safety Certificate, encompassing all of the essential fire safety measures contained in the fire safety schedule must be obtained and be submitted to Council, in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000.  The Fire Safety Certificate must be consistent with the Fire Safety Schedule which forms part of the Construction Certificate.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Certificate must be displayed in the building entrance/foyer at all times and a copy of the Fire Safety Certificate and Fire Safety Schedule must also be forwarded to Fire & Rescue NSW.

 

Waste Management

15.     Adequate provisions are to be made within the premises for the storage, collection and disposal of trade/commercial waste and recyclable materials, to the satisfaction of Council.

 

16.     Any trade/commercial waste materials must not be disposed in or through Council’s domestic garbage service.  All trade/commercial waste materials must be collected by Council’s Trade Waste Service or a waste contractor authorised by the Waste Service of New South Wales. Details of the proposed waste collection and disposal service are to be submitted to Council prior to commencing operation of the business.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

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

 

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

 

Noise Emissions

17.     The operation of the premises and all plant and equipment must not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance or, result in an ‘offensive noise’ as defined in the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

 

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

 

18.     The owner of the subject site must advise Council in writing of any change in the tenant that is operating the massage shop and advise the new tenant that they must provide Council with the qualifications of all staff involved in providing massage services prior to commencing the new operation.

 

19.     The premises must only be used for the purposes of remedial massage. The premises must not to be used for the purposes of a brothel and in this regard, no sexual services of any kind are to be offered in association with the massage use.

 

20.     The maximum number of employees operating from the subject premises is restricted to 4, and their relevant remedial and therapeutic massage qualifications are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to the commencement of the use or when there are new employees.

 

21.     Any other treatments/services other than remedial massage will require a separate application to Council and relevant approval shall be obtained (as required) prior to commencement.

 

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

 

Monday to Sunday from: 10am – 9pm.

 

Plant & Equipment

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

 

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

 

Air Conditioners

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

 

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

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

 

Fire Safety Statements

25.     A single and complete Fire Safety Statement (encompassing all of the fire safety measures upon the premises) must be provided to the Council in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000.

 

The Fire Safety Statement must be provided on an annual basis, each year following the issue of the Fire Safety Certificate and other period if any of the fire safety measures are identified as a critical fire safety measure in the Fire Safety Schedule

 

The Fire Safety Statement is required to confirm that all the fire safety measures have been assessed by a properly qualified person and are operating in accordance with the standards of performance specified in the Fire Safety Schedule.

 

A copy of the Fire Safety Statement must be displayed in the building entrance/foyer at all times and a copy must also be forwarded to Fire & Rescue NSW.

 

GENERAL ADVISORY NOTES

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

 

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

 

Failure to comply with these legislative requirements is an offence and may result in the commencement of legal proceedings, issuing of `on-the-spot` penalty infringements or service of a notice and order by Council.

 

A2      The assessment of this development application does not include an assessment of the proposed building work under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010. All new building work must comply with the BCA and relevant Australian Standards and details of compliance must be provided in the Construction Certificate application.

 

A3      The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 July 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D54/16

 

Subject:                  16 Coogee Street, Randwick (DA/853/2013/A)

Folder No:               DA/853/2013/A

Author:                    Tuong-Vi Doan, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Section 96 modification of the approved development by construction of a retaining wall on rear boundary with fence above.

                                       Original consent: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a part 2/part 3 storey residential flat building containing 9 units, basement car parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping, fencing and associated works (variation to floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Robigan Pty Ltd

Owner:                    Mr J T Grant & Mrs E Grant

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan


 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as the original application was determined by Council.

 

1.       Details of Current Approval:

Development consent was granted on 9 September 2014 for the demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a part 2/part 3 storey residential flat building containing 9 units, basement car parking for 10 vehicles, landscaping, fencing and associated works.

2.       Details of Proposed Modification:

The subject application seeks to modifiy the approved development by construction of a retaining wall on the rear boundary with a fence above. The proposed retaining wall and fence is to have an overall height of 3m and up to date, unauthorised works has commenced including pile drilling into the area for the proposed works (See Figure 1 and 2).

 

Figure 1 Location of the retaining wall at 16 Coogee Street

Figure 2 View of location of the retaining wall from 13 Dolphin Street

 

 

3.       Site

The subject site is located on southern side of Coogee Street, Randwick and has an area of 660.4m2. The subject site extends through to the rear boundary of properties facing the northern side of Dolphin Street and is flanked to the east and west by 2 storey residential flat buildings.

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by a mixture of older style and 60-70s style residential flat buildings and single and 2 storey detached housing.

 

The subject site lies within the catchment area for the Council recently commissioned and adopted Coogee Bay Flood Study.

 

4.       Section 96 Assessment

Section 96(2) Criteria

Comment

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

The proposal is considered to represent substantially the same development as it relates to an ancillary construction of a retaining wall on the rear boundary with a fence above.

(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 owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed modification in accordance with the DCP. See Section 5 of this report. 

 

(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.

Submissions have been considered.

 

 

 

 

5.       Submissions

 

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

 

10 Coogee Street

Issue

Comment

Stormwater easement across the back of the property and the area is prone to flooding. Retaining wall will likely hold back the water and impede its flow.

Council’s Development Engineer considers that the retaining wall is unacceptable and will impede the overland flow path.

 

13 Dolphin Street

Issue

Comment

The proposed retaining wall will be non-compliant with the controls stipulated in the RDCP 2013 in relation to the retaining walls and rear fencing.

See “Key Issues” discussion below.

Maximum height of fence exceeds 2200 above ground level (existing).

See “Key Issues” discussion below.

Footings have already been drilled deep into the ground and concrete set around them.

Noted. Council’s Regulatory team has been advised and is investigating the matter.

 

15 Dolphin Street

Issue

Comment

The proposed wall will be higher than 1.8m above the adjoining ground level.

See “Key Issues” discussion below.

Potential loss of solar access received from the rear boundary if retaining wall is approved at 3.8m.

The proposed modification seeks to undertake substantial excavation of up to 3m to accommodate a new retaining wall on the rear boundary and does not comply with the following controls of the RDCP 2013.

 

See “Key Issues” discussion below.

 

6.       Key Issues

 

Flooding

The subject application was referred to Council’s Development Engineer for assessment and the following comments have been provided:

 

The assessing officer is advised that the subject site lies within the catchment for the Council recently commissioned and adopted Coogee Bay Flood Study. During  assessment of the original application the presence of a major overland flow path at the rear of the site was identified by the flood study and conditions  were placed in the original development consent to ensure the flow path was maintained including the following;

 

Flood Protection requirements

         

f.    There shall be no change to natural surface levels within 2m of the rear boundary so as to maintain the natural overland flow path at the rear of the property.

 

Fencing at the rear of the site was approved as a timber fence which was satisfactory to Development Engineering as these tend to collapse during major storm events.

 

The applicant now proposes a solid retaining wall which is not supported by Development Engineering as it is located on the rear property boundary and will likely to impact on the movement of overland flow through the subject site. This in turn may result in an increase in flooding impacts upstream and adjacent to the subject site within properties to the south and west.

 

The potential impacts on the overland flow path have not been acknowledged in the Statement of Environmental effects, which is less than a page long with no analysis of the flow path being undertaken.

 

It is also noted that a number of objections have been received by neighbouring residents on this aspect and these are supported by Development Engineering.

 

The extent of the flow path can be seen in Figure 3 below which was provided by the Drainage Engineer and obtained from the flood model at the time of the original assessment. It clearly shows the flow path encroaching into the subject property at the rear of the site hence the blocking of this path is likely to lead to increasing flooding impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Figure 3 Map of Flow Path

 

As it is doubtful that the application will be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Council’s Development & Drainage Engineers that the proposed development will not impact on adjacent flood levels the proposal is not supported and it is strongly recommended that the application be refused.

 

It is also advised that upon site inspection on the 17th June 2016 it was apparent that works have commenced on the proposed wall and it is therefore recommended the assessing officer refer the matter to the regulatory team for immediate action as this may have consequences during any storm events in the near future.

In view of the comments above, the proposal is unacceptable in regards to its flooding impacts.

 


 

Earthworks

The proposed modification seeks to undertake substantial excavation of up to 3m to accommodate a new retaining wall on the rear boundary and does not comply with the following controls of the RDCP 2013:

 

Setback the outer edge of any excavation, piling or sub-surface walls a minimum of 900mm from the side and rear boundaries. The thickness of retaining walls and indicative footing locations must be shown on the drawings.

 

Step retaining walls in response to the natural landform to avoid creating monolithic structures visible from the neighbouring properties and the public domain.

 

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 with each section not exceeding 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.

 

The non-compliance is considered to be unacceptable and will generate significant adverse impacts to the amenity of the surrounding neighbours. The proposed retaining wall will significantly change the natural ground levels of the site and impede the overland flow path and does not comply with the requirement of Condition 12 of the consent for flood protection. Furthermore, the proposed retaining wall will potentially result in unreasonable structural, visual and overshadowing impacts on the adjoining properties.

 

Rear Boundary Fence

The proposed fence is to be placed above the retaining wall with an overall height of 3 metres, which far exceeds the maximum fence height of 2200mm allowed under the DCP. The proposal does not meet the objectives in the DCP as it will adversely impact on the visual amenity and solar access to adjoining properties.

 

7.       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.

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

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

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

The site is zoned R3 – Medium Density under the LEP and the proposal relates to alterations and additions to an existing dwelling, which is permissible with Council’s consent. The proposal conflicting with the objectives of the zone in relation to the protection of residential amenities.

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

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

The proposal fails to respond to a number of controls and does not satisfy the relevant objectives of the DCP. 

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 conditions of the existing consent remain enforceable.

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 modification has not responded to appropriately to the DCP requirements and will result in adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbours.

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

The site is considered to be suitable for the proposal.

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 proposed modification will result in adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining neighbour and is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

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 fails to address the flood protection requirements and will adversely impact on the visual amenity and solar access to adjoining properties. The modification application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses its development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/853/2013/A by construction of a retaining wall on rear boundary with fence above at 16 Coogee Street, Randwick for the following reasons:  

1.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of R3 – Medium Density zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to the protection of residential amenity.

 

2.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of flooding under Part B8 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the retaining wall will likely to impact on the movement of overalnd flow through the subject site.

3.     The proposed retaining wall with fence above exceeds the maximum fence height control under Part C2 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 and will result in unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings in terms of visual amenity and solar access.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 July 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D55/16

 

Subject:                  20 Wentworth Street, Randwick (DA/194/2016)

Folder No:               DA/194/2016

Author:                    Gabrielle Coleman, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of the existing garage, construction of a new garage fronting the laneway with first floor studio/bathroom above, first floor alterations and additions to rear of existing dwelling including new first floor deck with pergola and associated works (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Jeff Karskens

Owner:                    J Anderson and M Blackley

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application has been called up to the Planning Committee Meeting by Councillors Neilson, Shurey and Moore.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

The subject application seeks consent for the construction of a new double garage with a first floor studio and extending the floor area of the first floor of the existing dwelling into the existing side loggia with new rear first floor deck.

 

 

Site

 

The site is located within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area on the western side of Wentworth Street with a secondary frontage to the rear Dangar Lane. The lot has a site area of 417.36m2 and is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 9.145m and boundary depth of 45.72m. The site adjoins a two storey dwelling to the south, a single storey dwelling to the north and the immediately surrounding area is predominantly residential.

 

 

DSC03782

Figure 1. Subject site

 

DSC03790

Figure 2. Existing garage at rear on the right.

 

DSC03786

Figure 3. Rear of the dwelling.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Issue

Comment

20 Wentworth Street Randwick

 

The roof form of the garage is inconsistent with the roof form of the dwelling and other neighbouring examples along Dangar Lane.

 

 

 

The proposed roof form ensures that the proposed upper level above the garage provides sufficient space for the studio as well as reducing the bulk of the garage by containing the upper level studio space within the roof form. The roof form of the garage is consistent with the existing character values for the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area defined in Section 4.9.3 of the RDCP 2013.

The RL of the ridge of the garage is similar to the RL of the main house roof and is not “secondary” in form.

The proposed garage is consistent with the maximum overall height and external wall height controls for outbuildings – see assessment below. 

The solar access to my Primary Open Space and carport will be lost.

Due to the orientation of the sites, it is inevitable that there will be some additional overshadowing. It is noted that any compliant outbuilding (such as the subject proposal) will result in some additional overshadowing.

 

There are no structures adjacent to the proposal that is comparable to the height, bulk and depth of the proposed structure.

There are two examples of garages with first floor habitable space at 17 Dangar Street and 28 Wentworth Street. They are both comparable in height, bulk and depth.

 

The building of the deck will result in significant additional overshadowing to my kitchen and living room. The deck should be reduced in width to extend only to the upstairs rear bathroom window and should be limited to the west to the extent of the existing ground floor room below.

The construction of the deck will not result in unreasonable bulk, given that the adjoining dwellings both extend past the rear building line of the subject dwelling and there will be no unreasonable overshadowing to the north facing living windows of the adjoining southern property. 

There is a need for acoustic panels to minimise noise transfer from the deck to the bedroom of my house.

The proposed deck is attached to a bedroom which is considered to be a low use room that would not result in unreasonable acoustic impacts.

The air conditioning unit should be repositioned within an acoustic enclosure at least 1.5m from the boundary or preferably on the roof of the subject dwelling.

A proposed condition of consent relocates the air conditioning unit to the northern side of the first floor deck to ensure that it will not result in unreasonable acoustic impacts.

Concerns about visual privacy impacts from the deck to the first floor bedroom and ground floor living area

The screens on the southern edge of the deck have been noted as full height fixed screens. A proposed condition of consent has been included that the terrace be reduced in width to be in line with the roof of the ground floor below and that a 500mm wide planter box be included along the western edge of the deck to further limit any potential privacy impacts.

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 5.1 Solar access to neighbouring development

The proposal meets the relevant objectives and controls under the RDCP 2013 for solar access to adjacent properties. However, impacts are detailed as follows:

 

The subject site is located on an east west axis with 22 Wentworth Street located directly to the south of the property. Therefore, the assessment below highlights the extent of the impact on overshadowing to 22 Wentworth Street as it is the property that will experience the greatest impact on shadows from the proposal. There is considered to be no significant impact on solar access to the other surrounding properties.

 

i)   Portion of the north-facing living room windows must receive a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The north-facing living windows of 22 Wentworth Street are located at ground floor to the rear of the dwelling. These windows will receive at least 3 hours of sunlight between 8am and 4pm on the 21st June.

 

Time

Impact on north facing living windows

8am

No additional impact on north facing living windows

10am

No impact on north facing living windows

12pm

No impact on north facing living windows

2pm

No impact on north facing living windows

3pm

No impact on north facing living windows

4pm

North facing living windows are in shadow

 

iv) POS (passive recreational activities) receive a minimum of 3 hrs of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

A portion of the rear POS to 22 Wentworth Street, capable of supporting passive recreational activities, receives 3 hours of sunlight between 10am and 2pm on the 21st June.

 

Time

Impact on principal POS

8am

Existing and proposed - the POS does not receive sunlight

10am

Additional shadows on the adjoining garage and carport but no additional shadows on the POS

12pm

Minor additional impact on the POS but still receives sunlight to support passive recreational activities

2pm

Additional impact on solar access but the POS still receives sunlight

3pm

Additional impact on solar access

4pm

The POS receives no sunlight 

 

vi) Variations may acceptable be subject to:

 

Although the proposal will be compliant with the minimum requirements for solar access to neighbouring development, it is worth noting that the proposal also meets the following requirements. 

 

·      Degree of meeting the FSR, height, setbacks and site coverage controls.

 

The proposed works to the first floor of the dwelling and the new garage with first floor studio space are appropriate in bulk and scale and are compliant with the relevant controls under the RDCP 2013 – see compliance table.

 

·      Orientation of the subject and adjoining allotments and subdivision pattern of the urban block.

 

The property is on an east/west axis, with 22 Wentworth Street to the south of the subject site. It is therefore inevitable that there will be some additional overshadowing, even from a compliant proposal. It is difficult to further minimise the scale of the proposal given that it is consistent with the relevant controls in the RLEP 2012 and RDCP 2013.

 

·      Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

 

There is no significant difference in levels between the subject site and the neighbouring southern property.

 

·      Location and level of the windows in question.

 

The ground floor, north-facing living windows will receive the minimum 3 hours of sunlight.

 

·      Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

There is already significant overshadowing on the southern neighbour from the existing dwelling on site. The proposal will result in additional overshadowing at the times highlighted in the tables above but is not considered unreasonable given that 3 hours of sunlight will still be received to the POS and north facing living windows between 8am and 4pm on the 21st June.

 

Clause 6.3 Setbacks of Parking Facilities

 

Side Setbacks

The RDCP 2013 requires that on sites with a frontage between 9m and 12m, a 900mm side setback is required for garages and carports. A nil side setback is considered in certain circumstances and an assessment against these criteria is below:

·      The adjoining property has its parking facilities or outbuildings constructed to the common boundary;

 

The garage at 18 Wentworth Street and the carport at 22 Wentworth Street are built to the side boundaries of 20 Wentworth Street.

 

Figure 4. Existing garage at 20 Wentworth Street adjoining the garage at 18 Wentworth Street.

 

Figure 5. Existing carport at 22 Wentworth Street with nil setback to the boundary with 20 Wentworth Street.

 

·      The location of car parking is compatible with the streetscape character;

 

The location of the subject garage to the rear of the site, fronting Dangar Lane is consistent with the location of parking facilities for properties along the western side of Wentworth Street between White Street and Wentworth Lane. Majority of double parking facilities along this section of Dangar Lane have nil side setbacks.

 

·      Appropriate sightlines will be maintained for drivers and pedestrians;

 

The proposal involves a nil setback to the rear lane similar to the adjoining garages/carport to the north and south. This will maintain appropriate sightlines for cars driving in and out of the proposed garage.

 

·      Development seeks to amalgamate the driveway crossing with that of the adjoining property.

 

The proposal does not seek to amalgamate the driveway crossing with that of the adjoining properties. This is not considered necessary as there will be no loss of on-street parking. 

 

 

Rear setback to Dangar Lane

The RDCP requires that entry to garages and carports off the rear lane must be setback a minimum of 1m from the lane boundary. The proposal involves a nil setback to the rear laneway which is considered reasonable in this case as it is consistent with the predominant setback in the laneway and will improve sightlines driving in and out of the garage.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications to the existing development have been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012 and Council’s Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended.   The proposed development (as conditioned), will not impose any significant impacts on the subject site or neighbouring dwellings with regard to  visual bulk and amenity and 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/194/2016 for the demolition of the existing garage, construction of a new garage fronting the laneway with first floor studio/bathroom above, first floor alterations and additions to rear of existing dwelling including new first floor deck with pergola and associated works (Heritage Conservation Area) at 20 Wentworth Street, Randwick subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The air conditioning unit must be relocated to the northern side of the first floor terrace in a noise attenuating enclosure. 

b.   The first floor deck must be reduced in width to be in line with the roof of the existing ground floor immediately below.

c.    A 500mm wide planter box must also be constructed along the western edge of the first floor deck.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 20 Wentworth Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 July 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D56/16

 

Subject:                  104 Gale Road, Maroubra (DA/821/2015)

Folder No:               DA/821/2015

Author:                    Roger Quinton, Coordinator Development Assessment      

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of 3 storey residential flat building with 5 dwellings and basement level car parking for 8 vehicles

Ward:                      Central Ward

Applicant:               Mr K Fernando

Owner:                    Mr & Mrs Fernando

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to the Planning Committee as the cost of works for the development at the time of submission of the development application was over $2 million. 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 5 dwelling units. Basement car parking is proposed for 8 vehicles.

 

Amended plans have been submitted during the assessment process which adjusted basement levels in response to the concerns of Council’s engineers and addressed issues relating to State Environmental Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development. The amended plans involved minor changes and did not require renotification.  

 

Site

 

The subject property has a slight slope to the rear and is presently occupied by a single storey dwelling with a carport/garage abutting the front boundary of the site. Surrounding development includes a large nursing home to the north of the site at 768 Anzac Parade. To the east of the site at 106 Gale Road is a 2 storey dwelling with basement level garage.

 

 

Figure 1: the subject property

 

Properties to the west of the site generally front Anzac Parade and are located between 15m and 27m from the boundary with the subject property with the exception of the dual occupancy located at 784 Anzac Parade. This building is constructed with the eastern most portions being approximately 1 metre from the common boundary with the 104 Gale Road.      

 

 

 

Figure 2: 102 Gale Road located to the west of the subject site at the left of the image

 

 

Figure 3: 106 Gale Road, immediately to the east of the subject site contains a two storey dwelling with semi-basement garage

 

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:

 

·      106 Gale Road

·      768 Anzac Parade

·      778 Anzac Parade

·      780 Anzac Parade

·      782 Anzac Parade

·      784 Anzac Parade

·      74a Anzac Parade

 

The issues raised in the above objections are as follows:

 

·      The proposal will result in privacy impacts on adjacent properties:

Planner’s comment

 

Openings on eastern and western elevations have glass block glazing which do not result in privacy impacts on adjacent properties. Also, the development is oriented north-south further limiting impacts of properties to the west and east and screening is proposed to the side of balconies. A proposed condition of consent details design requirements for the construction of the proposed screens in order to ensure over-looking from balconies is limited. Privacy impacts on the nursing home to the rear of the site are considered to be acceptable given the separation distance of 11m from the rear of the building to the rear boundary with the presence of existing vegetation adjacent to the boundary.

 

·      The communal open space at the rear of the development will be adjacent to the nursing home located to the north of the site and this will impact on the amenity of residents in the facility. Greater screening is required.

Planner’s comment

 

Existing colourbond fencing is to be retained on the rear boundary. In addition, as the proposed use of the site and the scale of the proposed development are in the range of those which are anticipated by the planning controls applying the to the subject site it is considered that any impacts on the nursing home will be acceptable.  Further, as each dwelling within the proposed development has access to either ground level private open space or a private balcony, it is anticipated that the use of the communal area will be at acceptable levels and limited in terms of impacts on the nursing home.   

 

·      The development will result in adverse noise impacts on surrounding properties:

Planner’s comment

Any noise impacts as a result of the development are considered to be acceptable as the proposed development is permissible with consent in the Residential R3 zone and any impacts would be commensurate with anticipated development within this zone.  

 

·      The development should be reduced to 2 storeys in height and is an over-development of the site:

Planner’s comment

The development complies with the maximum height standard in RLEP 2012. The suites of building envelope controls applicable to the subject property envisage the construction of 3 storey development. It is also noted that the proposal complies with FSR requirements and setbacks are considered to be acceptable. The development is therefore not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

 

·      There should be an increase in front and side setbacks

Planner’s comment

The front setback complies with DCP requirements. Side setbacks are assessed on merit for lots with a frontage of less than 12m. The development is considered to be acceptable in this regard, see Key Issues.

 

·      Landscaping and area for deep soil planting are inadequate

 

Planner’s comment

Landscaping and deep soil areas meet relevant DCP Objectives, see Key Issues.

 

·      The proposal will result unacceptable shadow impacts

 

Planner’s comment

The proposed development complies with relevant controls in this regards, see Key Issues.

 

·      Screens should be placed on west-facing balconies to prevent rubbish being thrown into adjacent properties

 

Planner’s comment

It is not considered necessary or appropriate to install screens on these balconies as the likelihood of rubbish being thrown into adjacent properties is low. In addition, screens would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of residents within the development.

 

·      Construction impacts will adversely impact on the amenity of adjacent properties

 

Planner’s comment

Proposed standard conditions of consent relating to construction hours, noise and construction traffic management will limit construction impacts to acceptable levels. A further condition also requires that dilapidation reports are undertaken as required.

 

·      Driveway setback is inadequate

 

Planner’s comment

The driveway is to be setback 700mm from the western boundary. Fencing and a planter are to be constructed adjacent to the western boundary limiting impacts on the adjacent property and it is therefore considered that the driveway location is acceptable.  

 

·      The recess in the western façade is supported in its current position and should not be moved

 

Planner’s comment

It is not proposed to move the recess in the western side of the development.

 

·      Fencing and planters should be increased adjacent to 106 Gale Road

 

Planner’s comment

Privacy impacts are discussed in the key Issues section and are considered to be acceptable. The plans indicate that the planter adjacent to the boundary extends to the rear of the proposed building which is considered to be an acceptable design response to limit impacts on the adjacent property. The height of fencing on the common boundary is a matter for resolution between the relevant parties.  

 

·      It is suggested that Council paves the nature strip to the front of the property

Planner’s comment

This is not a desirable environmental outcome for streetscape and environmental reasons. Indeed, a proposed condition of consent requires that an additional street tree is planted to the front of the property to provide increased environmental and public benefit. 

 

Key Issues

 

Communal Open Space

The application has not provided any communal open as is required by RDCP 2013 and has indicated that the rear landscaped area is to be for the private use of Unit 2. Council’s controls require that communal open space for residential is of a sufficient contiguous area and not divided up for allocation to individual units. Communal open space is also required by the SEPP 65: Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development requires consideration of the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

As there is adequate area to the rear of the building for an area of communal open space and private open space for Unit 2 a proposed condition of consent requires the provision of a communal area with a minimum depth of 6m as measured from the rear boundary with access to be provided adjacent to the eastern site boundary.  

 

Privacy

Openings on eastern and western elevations are glazed with glass blocks which ensures that privacy impacts on adjacent sites will be minimised. There is an 11m setback to the rear boundary. This will ensure that any privacy impacts on the nursing home to the rear of the site will be acceptable. Balconies are screened to limit impacts on adjacent properties to the east and west. A proposed condition of consent details design requirements for these screens to ensure they are effective in minimising privacy impacts.         

 

Solar access

Given the north-south orientation of the subject site the development will comply with RDCP 2013 requirements for solar access to adjacent properties.  

 

Side setbacks

As the site has a width of less than 12m side setbacks are judged on merit. Setbacks of 1.8m to the east and 1.05 metres to the west are proposed. The relevant Objective in Part C2 Section 3.4 of RDCP 2013 relating to side setbacks reads:

 

“To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views”

 

Solar access/shadow impacts have been detailed above and are considered to be acceptable, as have privacy impacts. The development will not impact on views from surrounding properties and adequate air circulation will be maintained.

 

The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in regard to proposed side setbacks.

 

Wall height

There is a minor infringement in the 10.5m wall height control at the rear of the building by 400mm. This is as a result of the slope of the site towards the rear of the site and will not result in any appreciable adverse environmental impacts. The development will comply with solar access requirements to adjacent properties and there will be no privacy impacts on adjacent properties as a result of the infringement. Relevant objectives in RDCP 2013 will be satisfied.       

 

Landscaping and deep soil planting

The development provides over 50% of the site as landscaped area and therefore complies with RDCP requirements. The proposed area of deep soil planting being 21.7% of site area does not meet the 25% of site requirement.  The area of deep soil planting is considered to be adequate as it will be contiguous with deep soil areas on adjacent sites, the deep soil area is located at ground level and is clear of structures. An additional street tree is to plant to the front of the property providing additional landscape benefit.  It is also noted that the development exceeds the deep soil planting requirements of the ADG. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in this regard.     

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the floor space ratio and height development standards in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. Given the north-south orientation of the site shadow impacts on adjacent properties are acceptable as are privacy impacts with the implementation of proposed conditions of consent relating to the construction of privacy screens on balconies. A further condition of consent requires the provision of a portion of the rear landscaped area to be provided as communal open space. The proposed development is otherwise considered to be acceptable and it is recommended for approval.

 

 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/821/2015 for demolition of the existing dwelling, construction of a 3 storey residential flat building containing 5 dwellings with basement parking for 8 vehicles and associated works, at No. 104 Gale road, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Non standard conditions

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

 

The following privacy screens :

 

·       Eastern and western sides of unit 3 balcony

·       Western side of all balconies for unit 5

·       Eastern side of balcony for unit 5 accessed from living area

·       Eastern and western side of balcony for unit 4 must have a minimum height of 1.5m above floor level and must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

3.       The solid portion of the front fence is not to exceed 600mm in height. The non-solid portion of the front fence is to be constructed with lightweight materials that are at least 30% open and evenly distributed along the full length of the fence. Details are to be shown on construction certificate plans.

 

4.       Mailboxes are to be located and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Australia Post. Mailboxes must be convenient for residents and not clutter the appearance of the development from the street. Mailboxes are to clearly mark the street number of the unit it serves. Details are to be shown on the construction certificate plans.

 

5.       An area of communal open space is to be provided with a minimum depth of 6m as measured from the rear site boundary with access provided adjacent to the eastern site boundary. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 104 Gale Road, Maroubra

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 July 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D57/16

 

Subject:                  20 Moore Street, Coogee (DA/551/2015)

Folder No:               DA/551/2015

Author:                    Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part two part three residential flat building comprising 3 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings and basement parking for 7 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works (variation to height of buildings and floor space ratio control)

Ward:                      North Ward

Applicant:               Sgammotta Architects

Owner:                    Mr P H Dermatis and Mrs I Dermatis

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=3ea02077-fc08-43ef-b807-e5f09d81d78b&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves demolition of all structures on site and construction of a two part three part residential flat building comprising 3 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings and basement parking for 7 vehicles, associated site and landscape works.

 

Amended plans were received by Council on the 7 March 2016, subject to a mediation between the objectors with alterations to the first and second floor plan with new balcony at rear, increased rear setback at first and second floor level and deletion of privacy screening at western edge of balcony at rear. The subject site is located within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area as prescribed within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 12 DP 2349 and also known as 20 Moore Street. The subject site is located on the northern side of Moore Street and is located between the intersections of Gordon Avenue and Major Street. The allotment is rectangular in shape and consists of the following dimensions:

 

Boundary

Length

Site Area

Northern (rear) boundary

12.19 metres

 

 

465.6m2

Eastern boundary

38.25 metres

Western boundary

38.12 metres

Southern (front) boundary

12.19 metres

 

·      Clause 4.6: Variations to a Development Standard

 

Floor Space Ratio

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

 

Proposed gross floor area

365.4sqm (0.79:1)

Maximum permissible gross floor area

349.7sqm (0.75:1)

FSR exceeding LEP control

15.7sqm (4%)

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

2.       The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment:

The development will establish a suitable scale to the streetscape and the building design appropriately responds to the site characteristics and the adjoining developments. The additional gross floor area is considered imperceptible given the form and massing of the development is commensurate to the built form with a mixture of two to three storey building heights within the immediate streetscape along Moore Street. The development will generally retain the existing character of the area that is permissible within the R3: Medium Density zone and the additional FSR does not contribute to the apparent visual bulk and scale impacts that are visible from the existing streetscape.

 

The current design scheme incorporates a number of articulations and modulations to all elevations at ground, first and second floor levels which complies with Council’s controls for Building Design with no part of the external wall extending more than 10 metres in length without dividing the elevation into sections, bays or modules. The proposal adopts a number of urban design measures including appropriately recessed wall planes, side courtyards/terraces at the ground floor level and a mixture of various building materials and finishes which alleviates the visual massing of the building visible from the existing streetscape and the neighbouring dwellings. The third floor level provides an additional setback to the side boundaries than the lower residential levels and the timber paling finish to the external walls help to soften the amount of concrete insitu and render providing a contemporary finish to the building design.

 

With regards to environmental and energy needs of the building, each apartment consists of a number of orientations which will allow for natural ventilation, light and solar access to the living rooms and habitable room areas. Whilst apartment no. 1 will receive limited solar access given its southern orientation, apartment nos. 2 and 4 will receive well above the required two hours of direct solar access with a northern aspect and apartment no. 3 includes a new clerestory roof element fronting Moore Street which will improve the amount of natural light and daylight into the south-facing living space. All apartments  have a depth of less than 10 metres from glass line to glass line which promotes cross ventilation into the habitable rooms and no single aspect apartments are proposed as part of the dwelling mix. The development will generally comply with the design guidance of the ADG requirements and will promote the environmental and energy needs of the objectives for floor space.

 

 

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

 

Assessment:

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

 

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

 

Assessment:

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

 

·      The visual privacy impacts to the eastern and western neighbours have been suitably addressed with the inclusion of appropriate conditions of consent to minimise overlooking from living and habitable room windows to the immediate eastern and western neighbouring dwellings. This includes the second floor east facing dining room windows (measured 2.4 metres from the eastern boundary) and a privacy screen to be installed along the full western edge of the second floor balcony to maintain visual privacy to the east facing window openings. The above will ensure a reasonable level of visual privacy is provided to the neighbouring premises and will not give rise to any adverse privacy impacts.

 

·      The extent of the solar access impacts to the eastern and western neighbouring dwellings is unavoidable given the orientation of the allotment. As discussed within the relevant solar access section of this report, the development will shadow the east and west facing window openings to nos. 16-18 and 22 Moore Street during a two hour period and outside of these hours the window openings will overshadow themselves. Subsequently, the extent of overshadowing is not a consequence of poor building design rather is largely attributable to the orientation of the window openings as east/west aspect and the degree of shadowing that is cast from any reasonably sized development that is compliant with the building envelope controls. Furthermore, it should be noted that the current scheme incorporates a number of design measures which are conducive of minimizing overshadowing to the neighbouring dwellings including an additional side setback at the third floor level above the minimum requirements and amended plans which provide an additional rear setback with a consistent rear building alignment as the neighbouring buildings to the east and west. The development is acceptable in minimizing solar access and overshadowing impacts.

 

·      The additional FSR does not give rise to view loss impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. Amended plans have been submitted by the applicant, which seeks to maintain a more consistent rear building alignment as the neighbouring dwellings within the existing streetscape. This included a reconfiguration and redistribution of the building bulk at the first and second floor levels to ensure a predominant rear building alignment is provided. Notwithstanding this, as discussed the view loss section of this report, suitable conditions of consent have been included that the first floor balcony be deleted and the north-western bedroom no. 1 incorporate an additional rear setback to maintain the easterly viewing aspects from the first floor east facing windows of 4/16-18 Moore Street to the headland view of Clovelly. The above will preserve the easterly corridor views to Clovelly and attributes to a more sensitively and skillfully designed development that ensures reasonable view sharing between the neighbouring premises.

 

2.       Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone 

 

        Objectives of zone:

 

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

·       To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density 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 demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 2, part 3 storey residential flat building will be in keeping with the zoning objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone. The design scheme will remain sympathetic with the existing two and three storey scale of the existing buildings within the streetscape and generally reflects one that is typified of a residential flat building. The marginal non-compliance of 15sqm is imperceptible from the streetscape given the building will retain a similar visual bulk and scale of the existing developments within the streetscape. The breach to the maximum permissible floor space ratio development standards does not give rise to any adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and is acceptable in providing a reasonable level of amenity with regards to visual privacy, overshadowing and views. Furthermore, the subject site is considered to be an area undergoing transition given the mixture of low and medium density residential developments along Moore Street and the permissible zoning which allows for higher density forms of residential development. The additional setbacks will retain the desirable elements of the buildings within the streetscape in maintaining viewing corridors to the adjoining neighbours.

 

3.     Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment:

The proposed development is consistent with the BASIX requirements as provided by the State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 and provisions within the Apartment Design Guide as required by the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development.

 

4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment:

The design scheme maintains a three storey scale and will fit comfortably within the subject allotment. The additional floor area does not contribute to unreasonable bulk that form a detracting feature compromising the streetscape character and the development will continue to comply with the building envelope objectives with regards to appropriate setbacks, building height and areas to provide adequate landscaping. As prescribed above, the variation to the floor space ratio development standard will not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings or within the streetscape and demonstrate a compliant development in terms of solar access, visual privacy and views.

 

5.     There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

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

 

·      The additionalfloor area of approximately 15sqm is considered to be minor and will not contribute to any unreasonable loss of amenity to the neighbouring properties and will not significantly contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development.

 

·      The second floor level consists of a side setback which mostly extends beyond the minimum 2 metre Council control. The predominant side setback is between 3.15 – 4.5 metres and 3.175 metres from the western and eastern boundaries, respectively. The additional setbacks alleviates the visual bulk of the second floor level and will improve the amenity of the adjoining neighbours by providing greater building separation and minimise the extent of shadows being cast from the eastern and western neighbours at no. 16-18 and 22 Moore Street. The additional setback will improve the level of amenity to the neighbouring premises in comparison to a compliant side setback consistent with Council’s controls. 

 

·      The building envelope has been modelled to appropriately respond to the adjoining neighbours and the amended plans propose a similar front and rear building alignment which will be consistent with the development patterns along Moore Street. The proposal generally complies with the suite of building envelope controls including setbacks, landscaping, design and siting of the building block (aside from a minor breach to the building height at the rear of the building block) which will promote the building configuration, massing and scale of the development remains consistent with the desired future character of the immediate locality. The development will seamlessly integrate within the built form character of the adjoining buildings.

 

·      The proposal is of high quality architectural merit which incorporates a number of articulations and modulations as part of the building design. This incorporates a number of significant recesses to the external walls to provide side courtyards and areas of private open space to each unit, modulations to the facades through a combination of staggered wall planes and varying materials and finishes to relieve the form and massing of the development visible from the adjoining neighbours and the existing streetscape.  

 

·      The new development does not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring buildings in terms of overshadowing, visual privacy, visual bulk and scale or view loss.

 

6.       The Variation is within the Public Interest

 

Assessment:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Height of Buildings

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

 

Proposed height of building

10.42 metres

Maximum height of building

9.5 metres

Height exceeding LEP control

920mm (9.6%) 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard. The objectives of the floor space ratio buildings standard are set out in clause 4.3(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 the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

2.  The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposed development will result in a minor breach to the height of building and the area of non-compliance varies between 350mm to 920mm from the southern end to the northern end of the residential flat building. The variation to the maximum building height of buildings development standard is relatively minor and will not result in any unreasonable level of visual bulk and is compatible with the scale of the neighbouring buildings to the east and west at nos. 16-18 and 22 Moore Street, Coogee. The proposed building height with a maximum RL39.6 will sit within the building height plane between the western neighbour with an RL40.4 and the eastern neighbour at RL37.8. The minor breach to the height of building is imperceptible given the form and massing of the development is commiserate to the built form of the two storey developments along Moore Street and the development will retain 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,

 

Assessment:

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

 

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

 

Assessment:

 

·      The visual privacy impacts to the eastern and western neighbours have been suitably addressed with the inclusion of appropriate conditions of consent to minimise overlooking from living and habitable room windows to the immediate eastern and western neighbouring dwellings. This includes the second floor east facing dining room windows (measured 2.4 metres from the eastern boundary) and a privacy screen to be installed along the full western edge of the second floor balcony to maintain visual privacy to the east facing window openings. The above will ensure a reasonable level of visual privacy is provided to the neighbouring premises and will not give rise to any adverse privacy impacts.

 

·      The extent of the solar access impacts to the eastern and western neighbouring dwellings is unavoidable given the orientation of the allotment. As discussed within the relevant solar access section of this report, the development will shadow the east and west facing window openings to nos. 16-18 and 22 Moore Street during a two hour period and outside of these hours the window openings will overshadow themselves. Subsequently, the extent of overshadowing is not a consequence of poor building design rather is largely attributable to the orientation of the window openings as east/west aspect and the degree of shadowing that is cast from any reasonably sized development that is compliant with the building envelope controls. Furthermore, it should be noted that the current scheme incorporates a number of design measures which are conducive of minimizing overshadowing to the neighbouring dwellings including an additional side setback at the third floor level above the minimum requirements and amended plans which provide an additional rear setback with a consistent rear building alignment as the neighbouring buildings to the east and west. The development is acceptable in minimizing solar access and overshadowing impacts.

 

·      The additional building height does not give rise to view loss impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. Amended plans have been submitted by the applicant which seeks to maintain a more consistent rear building alignment as the neighbouring dwellings within the existing streetscape. This included a reconfiguration and redistribution of the building bulk at the first and second floor levels to ensure a predominant rear building alignment was provided. Notwithstanding this, as advised within the view loss section of this report, suitable conditions of consent have been included that the first floor balcony be deleted and the north-western bedroom no. 1 incorporate an additional rear setback to maintain the easterly viewing aspects from the first floor east facing windows of 4/16-18 Moore Street to the headland view of Clovelly. The above will preserve the easterly corridor views to Clovelly and attributes to a more sensitively and skillfully designed development that ensures reasonable view sharing between the neighbouring premises.

 

2.       Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone 

 

        Objectives of zone:

 

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

·       To provide a variety of housing types within a medium density 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 demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 2, part 3 storey residential flat building will be in keeping with the zoning objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zoning. The design scheme will remain sympathetic with the existing two and three storey scale of the existing buildings within the streetscape and generally reflects one that is typified of a residential flat building. The marginal non-compliance with the height of buildings development standards is acceptable and does not attribute to any adverse visual bulk and scale impacts given the built form will be consistent with the building heights of the adjacent dwellings with particular regard to the eastern and western neighbour. The new built form will result in consistent form and massing across the streetscape and will not result in a development that extends beyond the building height plane that has been established by the adjacent dwellings. The new addition will generally retain the desired built form character within the streetscape and is not expected to contribute to any adverse environmental impacts to the residents. It is considered that the development is consistent with the objectives of the zone and strict compliance with the building height development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in the instance.

 

3.     Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment:

The proposed development is consistent with the BASIX requirements as provided by the State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 and provisions within the Apartment Design Guide as required by the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development.

 

4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment:

The design scheme maintains a three storey scale and will comfortably fit within the subject allotment. The additional building height to a maximum of 920mm does not contribute to any unreasonable visual bulk and scale impacts visible from the existing streetscape or the neighbouring buildings. The variation to the height of buildings development standard will not give rise to any unreasonable level of visual privacy, overshadowing and view loss impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The variation from the development standards will continue to provide a better planning outcome. 

 

5.     There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

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

 

·      The departure from the maximum height of buildings development standard is considered to be negligible given the degree of non-compliance from the front building alignment is limited to approximately 520mm at the south-eastern corner and 350mm at the south-western corner. The additional building height is insignificant and will not compromise the appearance of the building within the existing streetscape setting. The height of the proposed building will generally remain compatible with the adjoining neighbours.

 

·      The upper most level comprises of a ridge level of RL39.6 and the new built form will comfortably sit within the established building height plane to the adjacent dwellings at nos. 16-18 Moore Street at RL40.4 and 22 Moore Street at RL37.8. The non-compliant building height will not give rise to any perceivable visual bulk and scale impacts and the apparent scale of the building will remain within the context of the local character.

 

·      The degree of non-compliance to the rear of the subject site is largely attributed to the sloping nature of the site with a fall of approximately 500mm from Moore Street property boundary to the rear building alignment of the residential flat development. The extent of non-compliance from the rear is in respect to sloping typography of the site as the site falls from the southern to the northern end of the subject site.

 

·      The proposal does not given rise to any adverse environmental amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The amended design scheme will improve the views from the neighbouring premises by redistributing the building bulk at the first and second floor level from the rear of the subject site and will protect the view corridor by ensuring the rear building alignment is consistent with the predominant rear setback alignment established by the neighbouring buildings within the urban block. The overshadowing impact to the immediately adjoining neighbours is acceptable given the orientation of the allotments and is not contributory to an excessive size and scale or poor urban design of the building. Lastly, suitable conditions of consent have been included to minimise any overlooking impacts to the neighbouring premises.  

 

6.       The Variation is within the Public Interest

 

Assessment:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      21 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

·      30 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

·      1/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

·      4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

·      22 Moore Street, Coogee 

·      23 Moore Street, Coogee

·      24 Moore Street, Coogee

·      25-27 Moore Street, Coogee

·      26 Moore Street, Coogee 

·      2/2 Major Street, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal is considered an overdevelopment of the site.

The applicant has submitted Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards and the applicant has provided reasonable grounds to vary the standard and the applicant’s written request has provided sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravening the development standards of floor space ratio and height of buildings. The size and scale of the development  is acceptable  given the building will remain within the building height plane between the two neighbouring premises and will not contribute to any appreciable visual bulk and scale impacts. It will otherwise remain in keeping with the appearance of the existing streetscape.

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio as per the RLEP2012.

Refer to Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards within this report for further details.

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible height of buildings as per the RLEP2012.

Refer to Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards within this report for further details.

The proposed vehicular crossover will result in the loss of two on-street parking spaces.

The new vehicular crossover at 3 metres in width will result in the loss of one parking space. Notwithstanding this, the new driveway to the basement parking area will provide for an additional 7 off-street parking spaces. The proposed vehicular driveway achieves a minimum width and is reasonable in that it provides for a single car width only.

The proposal will result in view loss.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The proposal will cast significant shadowing to the living areas of the objectors premises.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The external wall exceeds 8 metres and does not comply with Council’s controls within the RDCP2013.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The overshadowing impacts are inaccurate and do not indicate the extent of shadowing cast to the objectors premises.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details regarding solar access and overshadowing impacts.

The building exceeds the established rear setback line and will result in view loss and overlooking impacts to the objectors premises.

Noted. Suitable conditions of consent have been imposed to ensure the rear building alignment will generally remain consistent with the neighbouring buildings within the urban block. Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The proposal will result in visual privacy impacts. 

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliances within this report for further details.

The objector is concerned with the structural integrity of the adjoining buildings given the extent of excavation works.

Noted. Suitable conditions of consent have been included that that the adjoining land and buildings be adequately supported at all times. Further, all excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations must be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings. A dilapidation report must also be submitted to the affected neighbours prior to the commencement of any works.

The driveway access must comply with Australian Standards.

The proposed driveway has been reviewed by Council’s development engineering officer and no objections have been received regarding the vehicular driveway grades with access from Moore Street.

The acoustic noise impacts will compromise the amenity to the objectors premises.

The proposal is not expected to result in any significant adverse noise impacts other than that which are reasonably expected as part of a residential flat development. The building provides for ample building separation to the habitable room areas consistent with the side setback requirements of the RDCP2013 at 2 metres from the eastern and western boundaries. Furthermore, suitable conditions of consent have been included to ensure the balconies are reduced in size at the rear to a maximum of two metres in depth to ensure the balcony sizes remain consistent with the Apartment Design Guide and will further reduce any additional noise intrusion to the neighbouring dwellings.

Any conditions of consent included by Council may not be followed by the applicant.

The applicant is required to appoint a principal certifying authority to ensure the proposed works are carried out in accordance with the development consent. Any conditions regarding the operations of the premises are ongoing to ensure the consent is complied by.

The proposal does not comply with the landscaping requirements of the RDCP2013.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The car parking at the basement level does not provide access through Kildare Lane and does not comply with the RDCP2013.

Council’s development engineering unit have advised that the vehicle access from the rear laneway (Kildare Lane) would not be supported. The laneway is only 3.05 metres wide, is half the width of typical laneways in Randwick LGA and far too narrow to facilitate satisfactory vehicle access and manoeuvring into the property. Subsequently, no rear lane access can be provided.

The application form does not indicate whether the site is above 10,000sqm or not and whether a site specific DCP is required.

The subject site has a site area of 577sqm and does not require a site specific DCP. No further additional information is required.

The increase to 7 off-street parking spaces will increase the amount of vehicular fumes from the premises.

The development complies with Council’s controls to the required vehicular parking rate of the RDCP2013 and any exhaust fumes are not expected to be significant and ancillary to a residential flat development.

The ground floor pathway and driveway access on the eastern end of the building will result in additional noise impacts to the eastern neighbour.

The additional noise impacts are considered to be ancillary to a residential flat building which is permissible with consent in this zone and all internal areas comply with the minimum setback requirements of the RDCP2013.

The proposal will cast additional shadowing to the existing solar panels at no. 22 Moore Street.

Whilst there are no specific controls relating to shadowing to solar panels as per the C3: Medium Density Residential Controls, the C1: Low Density controls can be applied as a guide to a merits based assessment. The controls prescribe that solar panels must receive a minimum of three hours of direct solar access between 8am – 4pm, 21 June. The solar panels will receive more than the required three hours during the morning periods and subsequently comply with Council’s controls for shadowing to existing solar collectors. 

The subject site is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area as prescribed within the RLEP2012.

Noted. Refer to Section 79C assessment within this report for further details.

The proposal will contribute to additional vehicular demand within the existing street network.

The proposal complies within Section B7: Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access for off-street parking demand and subsequently will not reduce the on-street parking demand.

The development will further reduce the availability of on-street parking.

The proposal complies with the vehicular parking rates as per the RDCP2013 and will not reduce any existing off-street parking.

The objector requests that Council check the proposed floor space ratio of the development.

Noted. The floor space calculation has been checked. Refer to Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards for further details.

 

The application was re-notified following amended plans being submitted by applicant received by Council on the 6 May which included the following modifications to the original plans:

 

·      Increase the rear setback of the first floor level external wall from 5.718 metres to 9.275 metres from the rear boundary.

·      Increase the side setback of the first floor level from the north-western and north-eastern portions of the building by 2.72 metres

·      Increase the building footprint of the second floor level to unit no. 4

 

An additional objection was received from the following objectors:

 

·      22 Moore Street, Coogee

·      24 Moore Street, Coogee

·      4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

·      1/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee  

 

Issue

Comment

The building is not consistent with the predominant rear setback alignment as established by the neighbouring buildings within the urban block.

Noted. Suitable conditions of consent have been included which seek to provide an additional setback from the rear boundary at the ground and first floor levels which will maintain a consistent rear building alignment which will be consistent with the neighbouring buildings. Refer to the key issues and areas of non-compliance for further details.

The size and scale of the development is considered to be inappropriate.

The applicant has submitted Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards and has provided reasonable grounds for approval the applicant’s written request adequately states there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standards of floor space ratio and height of buildings. The size and scale of the development  is acceptable  given the building will remain within the height plane between the two neighbouring premises and will not contribute to any appreciable visual bulk and scale impacts and it will otherwise remain in keeping with the appearance of the existing streetscape.

The new clerestory roof element is forward of the first floor front building alignment of no. 22 Moore Street.

The first floor clerestory roof form to the south-facing unit of apartment no. 3 sits between the first floor front building alignment of no. 16-18 Moore Street and no. 22 Moore Street and will provide a transition between the first floor levels of the neighbouring buildings.

The proposal will require more than 7 off-street parking spaces.

The development will continue to comply with the vehicular parking rates as contained within Part B7 – Transport, traffic, parking and access and will comply with the off-street parking provisions.

The proposal will result in significant overshadowing impacts.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The landscaping is inconsistent with the neighbouring buildings within the urban block.

The proposal will result in an equitable distribution of landscaping to the subject site and will align with other areas of permeable landscaping to the neighbouring premises within the front, rear and side setbacks of the building. 

The proposal includes new landscaping at the rear of the subject site to a height of 6 metres between the common boundary of the subject site no. 20 Moore Street and along the rear boundary adjacent Kildare Lane.

Council’s landscaping officer has reviewed the development application and a condition has been included as part of any consent:

 

In order to maintain existing water views for the adjoining property to the west, the screen planting of Bambusa Textilis var. Gracillis (Slender Weavers Bamboo) must be deleted from the planting plan and is to be replaced with an alternative species which will not exceed a high at maturity that is greater than the finished height of the dividing 1800mm high fencing.

The proposal will cast additional shadowing to the existing solar panels at no. 22 Moore Street.

Whilst there are no specific controls relating to shadowing to solar panels as per the C3: Medium Density Residential Controls, the C1: Low Density controls can be applied as a guide to a merits based assessment. The controls prescribe that solar panels must receive a minimum of three hours of direct solar access between 8am – 4pm, 21 June. The existing solar panels will continue to comply with Council’s controls in that the solar panels will receive more than the required three hours during the morning periods and subsequently comply with Council’s controls for shadowing to existing solar collectors. 

The proposal will contribute to additional visual and acoustic privacy impacts.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The proposal will accommodate too many people within the allotment of land.

The current design scheme and the apartment layout complies with the Apartment Design Guide as per the SEPP65: Design Quality for Residential Development and the C2: Medium Density Residential of the RDCP2013. 

The proposal will result in adverse solar access and overshadowing impacts.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The amended plans were not available on Council’s online DA tracking website.

A set of elevation plans were made available for public viewing on Council’s website and provided as part of Council’s public notification policy. The objector was advised and made aware that this plan was made available on Council’s website. 

The proposal will result in view loss from the neighbouring premises at 4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The rear balconies at the first and second floor levels include privacy screens and blade walls that will minimise the view from the objectors premises.

The current design scheme does not incorporate any blade walls or privacy screens to the balconies and suitable conditions of consent have been included to ensure equitable sharing of views from the objectors premises.

The external wall heights exceed Council’s minimum requirements as prescribed within the RDCP2013.

Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The shadow diagrams are an inaccurate reflection on potential solar access and overshadowing impacts.

The shadow diagrams have been checked by Council’s planning officers and the development is expected to contribute to additional overshadowing to the east and west facing window openings of the immediate adjoining neighbours. Refer to key issues and areas of non-compliance within this report for further details.

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio development standards as prescribed within the RLEP2012.

Noted. Refer to Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards for further details.

The objector requests that fixed acoustic and privacy screens be provided for all balconies and windows which overlook the objectors premises at no. 1/16-18 Moore Street.

No privacy screens will be installed on the second level balcony in order to provide equitable sharing of headland views that are visible from the dwellings to the west. Any overlooking to the objectors private open space is considered to be largely oblique given apartment no. 4 cantilevers over the private open space of 1/16-18 Moore Street. 

The objector is concerned with the structural integrity of the adjoining buildings given the extent of excavation works.

Noted. Suitable conditions of consent have been included that that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times. Further, all excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations must be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings. A dilapidation report must also be submitted to the affected neighbours prior to the commencement of any works.

The existing pedestrian pathways on the western side of the dwelling and driveway will give rise to additional noise impacts. 

The additional noise impacts are considered to be ancillary to a ‘residential flat building’ which is a permissible form of development within the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone.

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

Refer to key issues and non-compliances within this report for further details. 

The proposal is not within the public interest.

The proposal is considered to be within the public interest in considering the amenity impacts to the neighbouring premises and the appearance of the building within the existing streetscape.

 

Mediation

 

A mediation session was held on the 11 February 2016 between the applicant and the objectors with the following in attendance.

 

·      21 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

·      30 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

·      1/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

·      4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

·      22 Moore Street, Coogee 

·      23 Moore Street, Coogee

·      24 Moore Street, Coogee

·      25-27 Moore Street, Coogee

·      26 Moore Street, Coogee 

·      2/2 Major Street, Coogee

 

The issues raised as part of the mediation sessions included the following:

 

·      View loss from adjoining and surrounding properties;

·      Overshadowing; loss of direct sunlight; loss of daylight to affected properties;

·      Overlooking and loss of privacy;

·      Extent of building footprint and building form towards the rear;

·      Traffic impacts arising from additional density and cars;

·      Loss of kerbside car parking;

·      Scale and appearance of building viewed from Kildare Lane;

·      FSR in excess of RLEP standard and

·      Impact of excavation on subterranean water course and on adjoining properties.

 

At the conclusion of the mediation the applicant proposed to make the following amendments to the plans which included:

 

·      The rear setback of the first floor to be increased from 5.7m, as originally proposed, to 8.27 metres from the rear boundary;

·      The side boundary setback of the north-western section of the first floor to be increased from 2 metres to 4 metres

·      The use of the first floor to be changed from living area to bedrooms and the second floor to be changed from bedrooms to living area.

·      Rear of first floor to include a small balcony off the bedroom in the order of 1 metre in depth.

 

No agreement was reached between the applicant and the objectors.

 

 

Key Issues

 

·      SEPP 65 – Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development (Apartment Design Guidelines)

 

Part 3B Orientation:

 

Surrounding development:

The design guidance within the ADG specifies that overshadowing of neighbouring properties must be consistent with Part 4A solar and daylight access. Part 4A requires that living rooms and private open spaces of neighbouring dwellings of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of two hours of direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm and a maximum of 15% of apartments not receive any direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm, 21 June. The new residential flat development will result in additional shadowing which will fall on the east facing windows of the western neighbour (16-18 Moore Street) between the hours of 8am – 11am and will fall on the west facing windows of the eastern neighbour (22 Moore Street) between the hours of 12pm – 4pm. There are inherent difficulties in retaining direct solar access to the habitable room windows of the eastern and western neighbour.

 

The ground floor western neighbour at apartment 1/16-18 Moore Street consists of an east facing ground floor living/dining room window which will be shadowed by the proposed development. However, the window will not receive any solar access due to its eastern orientation which is shadowed by the proposed development during the morning period and overshadows itself in the afternoon. An elevational shadow diagram prepared by the applicant and subsequently checked by Council officers indicates that the ground floor east facing living room window will be shadowed by the proposed development between the hours of 9am – 11am and the objectors premises will shadow itself during the hours of 12pm – 5pm. The extent of the shadowing is considered to be unavoidable given any development with a compliant building envelope (in terms of side and rear setbacks and building height) would completely shadow the window openings to its entirety and subsequently the extent of solar access received into the subject window opening is a site constraint. 

 

The proposed building envelope will shadow the ground floor east facing windows between the hours of 9am – 11am. A minor breach to the floor space provisions by 17sqm and building height by 780mm to the rear portion of the built form does not contribute to further shadowing impacts beyond those of a compliant building envelope. Therefore the extent of shadowing cast does not arise from poor urban design given the development generally complies with the suite of building envelope controls including the landscaping, setbacks and front and rear building alignments to the neighbouring dwellings (as conditioned). In fact, the proposal provides an additional side setback above the minimum requirements at 2.72 metres and 3.3 metres along the north-western corner of the building at the first and second floor levels, respectively. The additional setbacks will provide greater building separation and will alleviate the solar access impacts beyond those of a development which complies with the side setback provisions. In considering the general compliant nature of the development, the eastern orientation of the window opening and its ground floor positioning it would be unreasonable to expect that the window could retain a minimum of two hours of direct solar access in accordance with the ADG requirements.  

 

Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that at least 75% of the apartments within the block at 16-18 Moore Street will comply with a minimum of two hours of solar access received between the hours of 9am – 3pm as per the ADG numerical controls.

 

The ground floor eastern semi-detached dwelling at no. 22 Moore Street will not contribute to adverse shadowing impact and will retain the required two hours of direct solar access.

 

Proposed development:

The above control also indicates living rooms and private open spaces of new development of at least 70% of apartments must receive a minimum of two hours of direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm and a maximum of 15% of apartments not receiving any direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm, 21 June. Apartment nos. 1 and 3 comprise of a southern orientation and are unlikely to receive any direct solar access between the hours of 9am – 3pm and therefore do not comply with the ADG requirements with only 50% of apartments receiving the minimum two hours, less than 70% of apartments and 50% of the apartments receiving no solar access, less than 15% of apartments. The departure from the ADG requirements is acceptable in considering the merits of the proposal and compliance with the respective design guidance as per the ADG. The building configuration aims to maximise the amenity to the occupants within the southern orientated apartments which currently enjoy multiple aspects to the apartments with no proposed single orientated south-facing apartments.  The number of dual aspect apartments will optimise the amount of natural daylight and solar access into the south-facing windows. Furthermore, the apartment configurations are acceptable in complying with the minimum apartment depth requirements and will achieve appropriate cross ventilation into the south facing apartments. The deviation from the Council controls for cross-ventilation is acceptable and will continue to comply with the ADG requirements.

 

·      Randwick Development Control Plan 2012 (Part C2: Medium Density Residential)

 

Clause 2.2: Landscaped Open Space

The proposed development will slightly reduce the amount of landscaped open space and deep soil areas to 48% (222.13sqm) less than the minimum requirements of 50% as prescribed within the RDCP2013. The minor variation to the Council controls is acceptable given the development will continue to satisfy the objectives for landscaped open space. The landscaped open space will provide for an equitable distribution of built and unbuilt upon areas; soft landscaping treatment has been accommodated adjacent the site boundaries to minimise stormwater runoff to the neighbouring premises; the landscaped open space areas located within the front and rear setbacks are suitably sized and consistent with similar landscaping treatments to the neighbouring dwellings to the existing developments along Moore Street and the landscaped areas have been provided in the form of terraces and courtyards along the eastern and western external walls of the dwelling to provide increased articulation and additional setbacks to the immediate neighbours. The slight reduction from the minimum landscaping requirements is acceptable and will comply with Council’s controls.   

 

Clause 2.3.2 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 no communal open space is provided on site. In addition to this, the SEPP 65: Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development requires consideration of the Better Apartment Design Guide which also requires that communal open space be provided with a minimum of 25% of the site.

 

However, the guidelines advise that on smaller allotments it may be difficult to provide for communal spaces and should communal areas not be provided the design scheme should incorporate larger balconies and increased private open space areas for apartments. 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 and achieving a minimum of 25% of the site area would not result in a better planning outcome given it would compromise the quality of the private open spaces and the occupants amenity.

 

In considering the subject sites nominal site area, the small no. of units 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 an subservient communal area. 

 

Clause 3.4: Setbacks

The RDPC2013 requires that the front setback be consistent with the prevailing front setback alignment of the neighbouring dwellings. The ground floor level maintains a similar setback to the western neighbour at 4.1 metres, however the first floor south-facing balcony encroaches within the established setback line of the adjoining buildings within the urban block at 2.4 metres. 

 

Export

 

In order to establish greater consistency with the front building alignments of the neighbouring dwellings a condition has been included as part of any consent that an additional setback of 900mm must be provided along the full south-eastern edge of the first floor balcony. The reduced protrusion of the first floor balcony beyond the predominant front setback alignment will reduce the area of non-compliance to the south-western corner of the balcony and will return to a similar setback alignment as no. 22 Moore Street. The inclusion of an additional condition will provide a greater transition of the first floor balcony between the front building alignments of the eastern and western neighbour whilst still providing ample private open space which will continue to comply with the ADG requirements with a depth of 2metres and an area of 8m2. The condition of consent will result in a sympathetic built form and will minimise the excessive balcony projection from the streetscape and remain compatible with the neighbouring buildings within the streetscape. 

 

Notwithstanding the above, the rear first and second floor level setbacks of the residential flat development do not comply with the objectives for setbacks.

 

First floor level:

The first floor level is inconsistent with the predominant rear building and balcony alignments of the neighbouring buildings within the urban block. The objectives for setbacks prescribe that adequate separation must be provided between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views. The amended plans show that the balcony will extend 1.6 metres from the balcony of the eastern neighbour (22 Moore Street) and 2.3 metres from the western neighbour (16-18 Moore Street). The balcony is not supported given that it will allow for overlooking into the north and west facing first floor living room windows of the western neighbour. Furthermore, the new balcony interrupts the easterly viewing corridor which is largely uninterrupted by the adjoining dwellings to provide for equitable view sharing between the neighbouring dwellings within the urban block. It is noted that an increased rear setback that is consistent with the predominant street of the adjoining allotments would significantly improve significant headland views visible from the western neighbour.

 

The first floor north-facing bedroom no. 1 also extends approximately 3 metres beyond the rear building alignment of the eastern neighbour and 600mm from the western neighbour. The additional building depth is likely to impact the first floor east facing window of the western neighbour and will decimate the significant water views of an existing headland. A sensitive and skilful design which incorporates an additional rear setback and maintains the rear building alignment of the neighbouring premises would significantly enhance the viewing opportunities from the adjacent unit to the headland view. To address the above, the following conditions have been recommended as part of any consent:

 

·      The rear first floor balcony including associated balustrading shall be deleted. The sliding door on the northern elevation shall be replaced with a suitably sized window. The bottom sill of the window shall be a minimum 1 metre above the finished first floor level to provide for equitable sharing of views. The BASIX certificate shall be amended to reflect the above changes.

·      The first floor north-facing bedroom no. 1 shall be setback an additional 1 metre from the rear boundary and maintain a similar building alignment as the adjoining bedroom no. 2 in apartment no. 4 to ensure an equitable sharing of views from the western neighbouring premises. 

  

The inclusion of the above conditions would contribute a more sympathetic design scheme which considers the viewing opportunities for the adjoining neighbours in ensuring a reasonable level of amenity is achieved.

 

Second floor level:

At the second floor level the rear balcony extends beyond the balcony alignment of the neighbouring dwellings to the east by 700mm. To ensure the alignment remains consistent with the prevailing rear setback line that is established by the adjoining neighbours and does not encroach into the easterly viewing corridor at the rear the following condition has been included as part of any consent:

 

·      The second floor balcony and any associated balustrading be setback an additional 700mm from the rear boundary and maintain a similar alignment as the balcony at no. 22 Moore Street.

 

Clause 4.4: External Wall Height

The proposed building envelope results in a maximum external wall height of 10.28 metres and exceeds the maximum permissible external wall height of 8 metres. The departure to the Council control and the maximum permissible height of buildings development standard is directly attributed to the third floor level of the residential flat building. The objectives of external wall heights are as follows:

 

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

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

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

 

The departure from the Council’s control to the external wall height requirement is acceptable given the proposal incorporates a number of design measures which minimises the perceivable visual bulk and scale of the development. The non-compliant portion of the external wall at the second floor level exhibits extensive side setbacks above the minimum requirements between 2m to 4.5m which alleviates the visual bulk of the building by providing an additional building separation to the immediately adjoining northern neighbour. Notwithstanding this, the design and sitting of the new upper floor levels provides an additional setback of 5 metres from the front building alignment and will maintain the rear building alignment of the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The visual bulk and scale of the skillion roof form will also remain consistent with the existing residential flat buildings within the immediate streetscape along Moore Street and its low profile nature will ensure that the overall building height remains compatible with the building height plane of the eastern and western neighbour. The design scheme of the upper floor level also incorporates a number of materials and finishes including a combination of timber panelling and cement rendering which varies from the finishes provided at the lower levels which further accentuates the modulated elements of the first floor level. Finally, the area of non-compliance is not expected to result in any adverse environmental impacts to the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings. The new window openings have been appropriately conditioned to minimise visual privacy impacts to the adjoining neighbours, the development will provide a reasonable level of solar access in considering the orientation of the allotments and the development will not contribute to view loss impacts given the amendments to the rear building alignment and will maintain a view corridor to the east. In considering the above, the development is reasonable in providing an acceptable level of amenity and does not contribute to any excessive visual bulk and scale impacts arising from the non-compliant external wall height.

 

Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy

The Council objectives for visual privacy prescribe the following:

 

·      A high level of amenity is achieved by providing for reasonable level of visual privacy for dwellings and neighbouring properties

·      Development should also be designed so that its occupants enjoy visual and acoustic privacy, whilst maintaining the existing level of privacy of adjoining and nearby properties. 

 

The privacy impacts are as follows:

 

Eastern elevation:

The first floor bedroom no. 1 window of apartment no. 3 and the first floor study of apartment no. 4 are directly opposite a west-facing first floor bedroom window. The second floor dining room windows measured 2.4 metres from the eastern boundary are also directly opposite the first floor bedroom no.1 window and will result in direct overlooking into the habitable room window. To maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy a condition of consent has been included that the window openings must have a minimum sill height 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

Western elevation:

The first floor foyer room window is directly opposite the habitable room windows of the apartments no. 1 and 4 of 16-18 Moore Street and will compromise the level of visual privacy to the neighbouring premises. To maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy a condition of consent has been included that the window opening must have a minimum sill height 1.6m above floor level, or alternatively, the window/s are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

        Rear balconies:

The proposal also includes new first and second floor balconies at the rear of the subject site. In order to maintain equitable view sharing between the neighbouring dwellings within the urban block (in particular those to the west of the subject site) and to maintain the predominant rear building alignment of the adjoining neighbours a condition of consent has been included that the rear first floor balcony including associated balustrading shall be deleted. The sliding door on the northern elevation shall be replaced with a suitably sized window. See view loss for further details.   

 

The new second floor balcony is also located immediately adjacent a west facing living room window to apartment no. 4/16-18 Moore Street. To minimise the opportunities for overlooking a condition of consent has been included that the balcony and associated balustrading be setback an additional 1 metre from the rear boundary and a 1.6 metre high privacy screen be installed along the full western edge of the rear second floor balcony. The privacy screen will not restrict the easterly viewing corridor from the west given the screen will maintain a similar rear building alignment as the neighbouring dwellings to the west (16-18 Moore Street) and an approved 1.6 metre high privacy screen along the full western edge of the first floor balcony to the eastern neighbour (22 Moore Street)(DA/941/2011/C). Notwithstanding this, the inclusion of a second floor privacy screen will not restrict the viewing aspect from the first floor east facing window of the western neighbour given the top of the window sill is at RL36.6 and the finished floor level of the balcony at RL36.5 will not compromise existing views.

 

Clause 5.5: View Sharing

Loss of views has been raised by several objectors from the immediate neighbours:

 

·      21 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

·      30 Gordon Avenue, Coogee

·      1/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

·      4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee 

 

The originally submitted plans received by Council on the 13 August 2015 included a first floor level rear setback of 6.5 metres measured from the external wall and a minimum 3.9 metres from the balcony to the rear boundary. A number of objections were received from the western neighbours regarding potential view loss impacts to the adjoining premises and subsequently mediation was held between the applicant and the objectors to address the areas of non-compliance. The applicant submitted amended plans on the 6 May 2016 which included modifications to the building envelope which included an additional rear setback of 7.15 metres from the balcony alignment and between 9.275m-10.3m from the building alignment. The amended plans also include a new balcony at the second floor level setback 8.5 metres from the rear boundary.

 

Councils planning officer contacted the objectors to carry out a view loss inspection. The western neighbour at no. 30 Gordon Avenue was not available to carry out a site inspection and no. 21 Gordon Avenue provided written confirmation that no site access would be necessary given the new works would not contribute to any appreciable view loss impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The apartments at no. 1 and 4 of 16-18 Moore Street, Coogee were available to carry out view loss assessments. To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

 

1.  Quality of Views:

 

The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.

 

Planners Assessment:

 

1/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

No water views are visible from any internal areas of the subject premises. An easterly water view is available at the rear of the subject site within the common area beyond the existing low line side boundary fencing. The water view is considered to be a partial water view and obtained between the rooftops of the buildings. The view is mostly obscured by an existing tree located on the objectors premises and the immediate northern neighbour.  

 

IMG_7258

Existing view standing within the communal area

 

IMG_7252

View beyond the existing trees

 

4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

The water view is visible the first floor level of the east facing living room window. The view is considered to be a significant which includes a headland and a transition between land and water.

 

IMG_7234

Existing view from the east facing window opening

 

IMG_7236

Existing view from the east facing window opening

 

 

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

 

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.

 

1/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

The views obtained are from the private open space/communal area located at the rear of the ground floor unit. The view is to the east which is across a side boundary and is currently highly obscured by the existing natural vegetation located along the eastern side boundary. The view can only be appreciated in a standing position.

 

4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

The views that are obtained from the east facing apartments are over the existing eastern side boundary. The reasonable expectation of view retention explicitly states that ‘views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries’ and ‘the expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic’. The views from the apartments of the western affected neighbour are only appreciable through side boundary views and are obtainable through a standing position adjacent a window opening.  

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

 

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

 

1/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

The proposal will result in the total loss of distant water views. However, the existing views are considered to have low retention value given the views are obscured by the existing natural vegetation located along the side boundary, is not visible from any internal living areas/bedrooms/service areas and is an existing side view. The views are visible only from a communal open space/private open space and is only appreciable given that the existing side boundary fence is lower than a standard 1.8 metre high fence level. Any new side boundary fencing with a standard height of 1.8 metres from the ground level (existing) will result in the complete loss of views. Qualitatively the view loss is considered to be minor.  

 

4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

The amended plans submitted on the 6 May 2016 will reduce view impacts from those resulting from the original design scheme. However, the first floor level bedrooms located at the rear of apartment no. 4 protrude slightly beyond the rear building alignment of the western neighbour by 600mm. The first floor level will result in the total loss of the easterly headland view of Clovelly visible from the images above. Qualitatively the view loss is considered to be severe/devastating.    

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

 

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.

 

1/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

The area of view loss is attributed to the rear ground floor addition consisting of a living/dining room of apartment no.2 at the rear of the residential flat building. The new rear addition is considered to be a reasonable form of development given the building is compliant with the rear setback controls as prescribed within the RDCP2013 with a setback of 5.7 metres from the rear boundary. Furthermore, the extent of view loss is not contributory to the non-compliance to the height of buildings development standards as prescribed by the RLEP2012 and the incremental increase to the floor area above the maximum requirements of 18sqm is minor and does not involve wholesale changes to the current design scheme that would otherwise improve views over Coogee. With regards to the building envelope the proposed development provides ample setbacks above the minimum requirements and will generally provide a compliant site landscaping with an equitable distribution of built and unbuilt upon areas which are consistent with the buildings that are typified within the adjoining allotments. The additional area is considered acceptable in terms of the reasonableness of the proposal. 

 

4/16-18 Moore Street, Coogee

The rear building alignments are generally characterised by developments with balcony structures. The external walls and the balconies maintain a similar alignment in order to provide equitable view sharing at the first floor levels of the dwelling. However, the first floor external wall of the proposed development extends beyond the predominant building wall alignment and maintains a similar alignment as the existing the balcony levels of the adjoining neighbours. In fact the first floor bedroom no. 1 protrudes approximately 600mm beyond the first floor building alignment of apartment no. 4/16-18 Moore Street and will likely result in total loss of the existing headland views. In order to provide equitable view sharing from the neighbouring premises, maintain the easterly viewing corridor and preserve the predominant rear building/balcony alignment between the adjoining neighbours the following conditions of consent has been included:

 

·      The rear first floor balcony including associated balustrading shall be deleted. The sliding door on the northern elevation shall be replaced with a suitably sized window. The bottom sill of the window shall be a minimum 1 metre above the finished first floor level to provide for equitable sharing of views. The BASIX certificate shall be amended to reflect the above changes.

 

·      The first floor north-facing bedroom no. 1 shall be setback an additional 1 metre from the rear boundary and maintain a similar building alignment as the adjoining bedroom no. 2 in apartment no. 4 to ensure an equitable sharing of views from the western neighbouring premises. 

 

The above conditions of consent will significantly improve the views which include a headland view of Clovelly with a transition between land and water. The reduction to the bedroom size will continue to comply with the ADG requirements for apartment sizes given the minimum dimension of 3 metres is achieved (subject to the deletion of a robe) and will comply with the minimum size requirement of 9 metres. Notwithstanding this, the deletion of the first floor balcony is acceptable given apartment no. 4 will continue to have access to an area of private open space at the second floor level and is considered to be a more purposeful space given it immediately adjoins the second floor living space. The conditions above will improve the views from the neighbouring premises and will continue to demonstrate a reasonable form of 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 demolition of the existing structures on site and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey residential flat development comprising 3 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings and basement parking for 7 vehicles and associated site and landscape works will not contribute to any unreasonable adverse impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and will remain in keeping with the streetscape character. The variation to the building height and floor space ratio is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.4, respectively and does not give rise to any adverse visual bulk and scale or compromise the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The inclusion of non-standard conditions regarding an additional rear setback of the building will improve view sharing from the western adjoining neighbours and will maintain the headland view corridor of Clovelly. In terms of solar access and overshadowing the building generally satisfies the design criteria of Part 3B: Orientation and is acceptable in terms of the amount of solar access received in considering the overall site constraints. The subject application is recommended for approval.

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 551/2015 for the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part two part three residential flat building comprising 3 x 2 bedroom and 1 x 3 bedroom dwellings and basement parking for 7 vehicles, associated site and landscaping works (variation to height of buildings and floor space ration control), at No. 20 Moore Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

        Amendment of Plans & Documentation

2.       The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate:

 

a.      A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m is to be provided along the full western edge of the second floor balcony and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.  The privacy screen must be constructed of either obscured or sandblasted glazing.

 

b.      The openings within the timber panelling of the proposed front fence shall be a minimum of 30% open when viewed from the street to maintain the amenity to the adjoining residential development and the streetscape.

 

c.      Consent is not granted for the construction of the dividing boundary fences on the eastern and western boundaries unless the boundary fences meet the relevant requirements under the Dividing Fences Act 1991 or the State Environmental Planning Policy (Exempt and Complying Development Codes) 2008.

 

d.      A new window opening must be installed along the ground floor eastern external wall of bedroom no. 1 to apartment no.2 that extends between the door frame and the dividing fence between apartment nos. 1 and 2. The window shall have a sill height of 1.6 metres above the finished floor level.

 

e.      The rear first floor balcony including associated balustrading shall be deleted. The sliding door on the northern elevation shall be replaced with a suitably sized window. The bottom sill of the window shall be a minimum 1 metre above the finished first floor level to provide for equitable sharing of views. The BASIX certificate shall be amended to reflect the above changes.

 

f.       The first floor north-facing bedroom no. 1 shall be setback an additional 1 metre from the rear boundary and maintain a similar building alignment as the adjoining bedroom no. 2 in apartment no. 4 to ensure an equitable sharing of views from the western neighbour. 

 

g.      The first floor south-facing balcony and any associated balustrading must be setback an additional 900mm from the south-eastern edge of the balcony.

 

h.      The rear second floor balcony and any associated balustrading must be setback an additional 700mm from the rear boundary and maintain a similar alignment as the balcony at no. 22 Moore Street.

 

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

 

·    First floor, east facing bedroom no. 1 window (apartment no. 3)

·    First floor, east facing study room window (apartment no. 4)

·    Second floor, east facing dining room windows (measured 2.4 metres from the eastern boundary) (apartment no. 4)

·    First floor, west facing foyer room window (foyer room)

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 20 Moore Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 July 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D58/16

 

Subject:                  29 Dolphin Street, Randwick (DA/333/2015)

Folder No:               DA/333/2015

Author:                    Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                 Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building for a 1 x 2 bedroom unit (unit 5) with study in a roof form redesigned with dormer elements and allocation of 2 units as affordable rental housing (unit3 and unit 5). (Variation to building height control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Mr L Flood

Owner:                    Farrer Flood Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=42e9e99c-ad66-4c90-95cb-5e954730ea79&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee meeting as it exceeds by more than 10% the maximum building height standard in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP).

Proposal

 

Alterations and additions to existing residential flat buildings for a 1 x 2 bedroom unit with study in a roof form redesigned with dormer elements. The redesigned upper level varies from the original proposal which was for 2 x 1 bedroom units, replacing the upper level addition that presented more as a floor level above rather than the habitable roof form redesign - see figures 1 and 2 below.  The application also seeks to allocate two units within the building (unit 5 and unit 3 – first floor unit) for the purposes of affordable rental housing under the State Environmental Planning Policy – Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (ARH SEPP). These two units will be registered with a community housing provider for a period of 10 years. Original proposal: The original application sought an upper level addition for the purposes of two x one bedroom dwellings as shown in figure 2 below.

 

Figure 1: Amended application reduces the scale of the upper level addition so that it is contained within a dormer roof form. The upper floor addition proposes one x two bedroom unit within a dormer roof.

Figure 2: Original application comprised an upper level addition containing two x one bedroom units contained within sheer walls extending vertically from the walls below.

 

Site history

 

DA/720/2012: Approval granted for rear additions to the existing ground and first floor units including habitable rooms within the lower ground floor level – shown in the plan excerpt below. It is noted that the number of units did not change as part of this approval and that an assessment of the retention of affordable rental housing was carried out as part of the assessment of this application meaning that no further consideration is required as part of this application.

Figure 3: Western side elevation showing the additions to the existing flat building approved under DA/720/2012 and the building heights.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the northern side of Dolphin Street in Randwick and is occupied by an existing flat building on an allotment of land that falls down to the rear.

Photo 1: front elevation to Dolphin Street; Photo 2: rear elevation at left and rear of flat building at No. 27 Dolphin Street at right of photo.

 

The site has a frontage width of 12.192m along Dolphin Street, a side boundary depth of 41.148m and has an overall site area of 501.86m². The topography of the site is pronounced in that it falls significantly from street level at Dolphin Street to the rear abutting the rear boundary of two properties fronting Coogee Street. There is a 5.5m difference between the top land level at Dolphin Street level (RL99.5) and rear (RL94.00) which is a 13% variance qualifying as a sloping site. The subject site’s topography is characteristic of other properties along this side of Dolphin Street. The neighbouring properties to the east and west contain two storey residential flat buildings with massing increasing in height at the rear due to the graduated lower land levels moving to the rear of each building resulting in three storey scales at the rear side and rear northern elevations.

 

The surrounding area is residential in nature containing a mix of residential flat buildings, detached dwelling houses, and semi-detached dwellings. Wrapping around to Courland Street there exist several larger residential flat buildings.

Aerial view of the subject site (bounded in green) and surrounding area. The aerial view also identifies the 5.5m drop in ground level in the direction of the arrow.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Building height and floor space ratios

 

Table 1: RLEP standards

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

R3 Medium Density

Objectives

Listed below

See below.

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1.07:1

(0.75:1 plus 0.32:1 bonus as per ARH SEPP)

1.04:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

12.46m

 

 

No*(see variation table below)

*see submissions made under Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard seeking support for variations to the building height and Floor space ratio.

 

Clause 4.3 – Height of buildings

 

The proposal contravenes the maximum height standard of 9.5m. The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Table 2: variation to the height standard

 

Height

Development Standard

9m

Proposal

Eastern elevation between 9.71m (ridge at front) – 11.44m (ridge at rear)

Western elevation between 10.01m (front) – 12.46m

Excess above RLEP Standard

Eastern elevation: 20.45% (rear ridge) - 2.2% (front ridge)

Western elevation: 31.1% (rear ridge)  - 5.3% (front ridge)

 

Figure 4: Eastern elevation of the proposed development

 

Figure 5: West elevation of the proposed development.

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to the development standard for height

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the maximum height standard contained in clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012 requesting to vary the development standard.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

The arguments presented in the applicant’s submission can be summarised as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In assessing the Clause 4.6 exception to the building height standard the reference is made to the following matters:

 

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

 

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

 

2.     The objectives of this clause are as follows:

 

The objectives of the building height clause read 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.

 

Assessment:

 

The justification provided in the applicant’s written request has sufficient planning merit having regard to the objectives of the standard, as discussed below.

 

While observing the breach of the height limit, it is to be expected that where a planning control provides for a bonus floor space ratio (in this instance to encourage greater provision of affordable housing), there will be some resultant variation necessary to either the height of the building or to its setbacks.

 

With respect to the built form of the development, the proposed development provides a greater side setback than that required by the RDCP and the main height variations occur along a hipped roof form where its massing is not immediately evident when viewed from neighbouring properties or the street level along Dolphin Street. The most obvious elements of massing relate to the dormer elements which have overall heights that are compliant or their variations to the height limit in the RLEP are minor protrusions. For instance, at the front of the dormers along the eastern and western elevations the height is between 9m and 9.2m exhibiting a scale that is consistent with the envisaged scale under the RLEP. Moving towards the rear the dormers exceed the 9.5m maximum height standard by a maximum of 18.9% reducing from a maximum of 31.1% which is more indicative of the massing of neighbouring buildings rear elevations. As previously indicated the variations are more obvious at the rear which is around 2.8m below land levels at the street.

 

Having regard to the above, whilst sections of the roof will exceed the 9.5m height limit by significant amounts they occur predominately along those hipped roof forms that are less pronounced in massing occurring well away from the side elevations and over the lower existing ground levels that are set well back from the street frontage.  At the front, the building’s overall height whilst still over the height limit is much less pronounced having, a variance of around 5.2% only. Further, the dormer elements which contain most massing have walls that are generally compliant with the maximum height standard having a height between 9.46m and 9.576m.

 

In reference to the overall height of the roof, it is considered that the hipped roof features ensure that the massing moves away from the outer walls of the built form resulting in a maximum height that is setback well away from the street and rear boundaries as well as the side elevations. This ensures the mass of the development is suitably minimised relative to the streetscape character and protects the neighbouring properties amenity. In relation to the dormers, these will be compliant with the 9.5m height limit at the front. Also as they are well setback from the front building line their massing will be less pronounced thus minimising bulk or scale when viewed from street level. Overall the proposed roof forms containing hipped and dormer elements represent a well-designed habitable roof form and will satisfy the relevant streetscape character objectives for height in the RLEP 2012.

 

Side setbacks

 

The dormer elements have 2.6m side setbacks which are greater than the 2m minimum under Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 for medium density development. These dormers are also consistent with the roof design requirements under this part of the RDCP limiting the floor area to a maximum of 60% of the floor level below. Setbacks are also provided from the front and rear elevations of the development.

 

The additional setbacks, in combination with the hipped roof form, will add articulation and assist in minimising the bulk and scale of the building.  They also minimise the visibility of the upper building portion from the street and assist in emphasising the lower height at the front and the smaller building scale associated with the lower density forms of medium density housing that are subject to the 0.75:1 floor space ratio limits.

 

The 2.6m side setbacks as amended will also ensure appropriate stepping in elements at the upper level ensuring that this level reads as a habitable roof form rather than the original proposal which read as an extension of the floors below. This unnecessarily contributed to significant massing and visual amenity impacts, which would not be consistent with the desired scale of development in the surrounding area and the zone. 

 

Neighbour’s amenity

 

The other considerations are whether or not the additional height caused by the roof forms will result in a significant impact to the amenity of neighbouring properties in comparison to a compliant situation.  In relation to neighbour’s amenity reference is made to whether there are reasonable levels of solar access and visual privacy is being protected. As discussed below the non-compliant section of the development will be of little consequence to the amenity of the neighbouring properties. 

 

Solar access

 

With reference to the assessment of ‘Solar Access’, the built form will not affect the neighbouring buildings northern elevation; it also maintains adequate solar access opportunities particularly to living rooms of the side elevations of neighbouring buildings.

 

The applicant has provided shadow diagrams (shown in figure 6 & 7 below) at 8am and 4pm however these shadows do not demonstrate whether the development will retain two hours of solar access to the neighbour’s living room windows during the winter solstice which is the minimum required under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG).

 

An analysis of shadow impacts on these side elevations of the neighbouring flat buildings living rooms has been carried out using CSIRO data. It is important to note that in determining the overshadowing impact as a result of the height on the neighbouring properties that it is the height of the building at the north eastern and north western corner that is the cause of shadowing to their living rooms windows and not the dormer elements.

 

Eastern elevation of flat building at No. 27 Dolphin Street:

 

 

Figure 6: Eastern elevation of No. 27 Dolphin Street showing the additional shadow (darker shading) will predominately be cast onto the non-habitable rooms at 8am during the winter solstice. The shadows will recede further to the left (that is towards Dolphin Street) as the hours of the day increase. An analysis of the sun’s azimuth angle during the winter solstice reveals that from 9.15am to 11.15am the neighbours east facing living room windows (identified above) will retain solar access during the winter solstice thus achieving compliance with the ADG controls requiring a minimum 2hrs to neighbour’s living room windows.

 

Western elevation of flat building at No. 31 Dolphin Street.

 

Figure 7: Elevation shadow diagram of the western elevation of the flat building at No. 31 Dolphin Street shows the living room windows will be overshadowed fully during the winter solstice however the proposed development will shadow (shown as darker shading) onto the roof and not onto their living room windows (identified).

 

An analysis of the earlier hours of the day during winter solstice reveals that this neighbour’s side facing living room windows will still be overshadowed by the existing approved development under DA/720/2012.

 

Overall, the proposed development will result in additional overshadowing however this will predominately be cast onto non-habitable room windows or the roof. Therefore in relation to the relevant controls requiring minimum periods of solar access to the neighbour’s living room windows it is not considered that the proposed upper level addition will result in any appreciable difference to the existing levels of overshadowing that would be caused by the already approved development.

 

Visual privacy

 

Windows: The additional height will be of no consequence to any visual privacy implications from windows as the dormer windows have 1.6m high sill lights allowing for only an outlook rather than overlooking into the neighbouring properties habitable room windows or areas of private open space.

 

Rear terrace to unit 5: The rear terrace has a depth of 4m from the rear of the unit with 2m long privacy screens along its side boundaries. The remaining 2m of terrace is open allowing for overlooking into the neighbouring properties habitable room windows and rear yard areas. As the terrace is also double the size of the minimum required under the ADG and given that large terraces have the potential for entertaining larger groups of people resulting in noise disturbance it is considered reasonable to require a reduction in the depth of the terrace to a maximum of 2m that is to the end of the proposed privacy screens. This ensures sufficient visual and acoustic privacy protection of the neighbouring properties amenity. A suitable condition is included.

 

Views: There are no evident views that would be unreasonably obstructed by the roof forms.

 

3.     Consistency with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Zone 

 

The Site is zoned R3 under RLEP 2012.  The proposed development for a ‘residential flat building’ is permissible with consent under the zone.

 

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

 

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

 

·      To 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.

 

Assessment:

 

The relevant assessment criteria as to whether the development will satisfy the relevant objectives of the zone are carried out as follows:

 

Clause 2.3 (2) requires the consent authority to have regard to the objectives for development in the zone.  The objectives of the zone are listed below. 

 

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

 

Assessment Comment:  The development will cater for the existing need for housing within a medium density residential environment.

 

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

 

Assessment Comment:  The development will provide variety via the number of bedrooms and apartment types/layouts.

 

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

 

Assessment Comment:  N/A

 

§    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.

 

Assessment Comment: The development will be consistent with the current scale and character of built forms within the locality.  It will reflect a well-designed habitable roof top element within the existing built form.

 

§    To protect the amenity of residents.

 

Assessment Comment:  The proposal will not result in loss of aural or visual privacy that cannot be overcome by the adoption of certain measures as discussed in this report. In addition, the proposal will maintain adequate solar access to the living areas within the bounds of reasonable expectations subject to standard conditions, the proposed demolition and construction works will result in reasonable / controlled amenity impacts on nearby residents.

 

§    To encourage housing affordability.

 

Assessment Comment: The proposal encourages housing affordability by introducing a new two bedroom unit (unit 5) and allocating an existing one bedroom unit as ‘affordable housing component’ via the provisions of the ARH SEPP.

 

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

 

Assessment Comment:  N/A

 

The assessment above and the arguments provided in the applicant’s submission demonstrate that the resultant environmental impacts of the proposal will be satisfactory or unavoidable. The variation will enable a well-considered development to be provided that addresses the site constraints, streetscape and relevant objectives of both the standards and the zone. Further, the proposal achieves a higher order planning principle in providing affordable housing and as such it is considered that in this case, strict compliance is unnecessary and unreasonable. 

 

3.     Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment:

 

The proposed development seeks development consent under the relevant environmental planning policies of the state and local government area. An assessment of these policies and standards has been carried out throughout this report and the accompanying Compliance report. The key issues have been identified and assessed as satisfactory in this report and the proposed development is considered to have achieved consistency with the state and regional planning policies.

 

4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment:

The design scheme maintains a scale that will fit comfortably within the subject allotment. The additional height area does not compromise the streetscape character and the development will continue to comply with the building envelope controls with regards to external and internal amenity of the future occupants of the development having regard to the ARH SEPP. As prescribed above, the variation to the building height development standard will not contribute to any significant or unreasonable adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring properties or within the streetscape and it demonstrates a development that does not result in any unreasonable impact in terms of solar access, visual privacy and views.

 

5.       There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

The assessment carried out above in relation to the objectives of the building height standard and the zone demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the building height variation.

 

6.       The Variation is within the Public Interest

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum building height in 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. Therefore strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the medium density housing form envisaged under the LEP for the locality or the provision of affordable housing as envisaged by the State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing 2009 as discussed in this report.

 

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:

 

·      Owners of 5 units in 27 Dolphin Street, Randwick

·      1/27 Dolphin Avenue, Randwick: letter containing 11 signatories received by Council

·      19 Dolphin Street, letter containing 5 signatories received by Council 15 June 2015

·      31 Dolphin Street, Randwick

 

Issue: Concerned with the variation to the height control limit due to the close proximity and the impacts such as loss of light and solar access.

 

Comment: See assessment of building height under the key issues section of this report and the reasonableness of the impacts on the neighbouring properties amenity.

 

Issue: Concerned with fire hazard of fallen leaves along kerb

 

Comment: This is not a planning matter however the relevant departments within Council are attending to this concern

 

Issue: The proposed development does not meet the parking requirements under the ARH SEPP and will result in significant demand for parking in Dolphin Street which is in high demand.

 

Comment: An assessment of the parking shortfall is carried out under the key issues section of this report.

 

Issue: No unit member within 27 Dolphin Street remembers being notified of the development consent issued under DA/720/2012.

 

Comment: Council records indicate that the owners in 27 Dolphin Street were notified of the development application DA/720/2012.

 

Issue: Council may not be aware of the extension approved under DA/720/2012 and the proposed developments impact on the neighbouring properties in relation to light infringement.

 

Comment: An assessment has been carried out against the approved and proposed development and is in accordance with the requirements of the RDCP 2013.


 

 

Issue: The DA notification is totally inadequate and misleading

 

Comment: The notification of the application was adequate for the purposes of inviting comment. It is noted that the description provides a general outline of the development sought and that the notification material including plans and documentation sufficiently explains the proposed development. The notification was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the RDCP 2013.

 

Issue: The units are not operating as affordable housing

 

Comment: The units are not currently operating as affordable housing. The subject application seeks to allocate two units for the purposes of affordable rental housing in tenure for 10 years from the date an occupation certificate is issued.

 

Issue: The alterations proposed convert this building to “state of the art” units, again, unrealistic for “affordable housing”- leading one to conclude that Randwick Council has not duly examined this request or has been misled

 

Comment: The application includes a reference to requiring the flats to be registered with a community housing provider for 10 years which is the requirement under the SEPP ARH2009). It is not considered that Council is being misled as to the purposes of the proposed development. Notwithstanding, appropriate conditions have been included in the recommendation section of the compliance report for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the ARH SEPP.

 

Issue: The proposed development will result in significant loss of light to the adjoining units at No. 27 and No. 31 Dolphin Street.

 

Comment: The overshadowing to the neighbouring units has been assessed and discussed throughout the key issues section of this report having regard to the relevant matters for consideration under S79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

Issue: The two week notification period is inadequate

 

Comment: Where requested an extension of this period to submit comment has been granted. It is also noted that the amended application was not required to be re-notified due to the smaller scale of the proposal and therefore reduced impact.

 

Issue: Concerned that a grant has been granted by Randwick City Council

 

Comment: This application is not a joint development with Randwick City Council and no grants have been provided for the development. The notion of affordable rental housing relates entirely to a private development being provided under the ARH SEPP whereby the units that is those above the FSR standard under the RLEP are provided as low cost and affordable accommodation for a period of 10 years from an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

Issue: Request a dilapidation report

 

Comment: There is no excavation being sought as part of this development application. The excavation necessary under the approved development application that is DA/720/2012 has suitable conditions included in relation to the requirement for a dilapidation report. Notwithstanding suitable conditions can be applied in the recommendation section of the attached report.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing 2009 (ARH SEPP)

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

The application proposes a gross floor area of 2018sqm, which represents an FSR of 1.03:1. The existing maximum FSR applicable under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) for the site is 0.75:1. Clause 13 of the ARH SEPP however provides a bonus FSR of 0.25:1, which would ordinarily allow for a maximum FSR of 1.15:1 (with up to 50% being provided as affordable housing). However as the application only provides for 32% of the gross total floor area as affordable housing a maximum FSR applying to the site is 1.07:1 (0.32 + 0.75).

 

The proposed GFA is compliant with the maximum permitted being 20sqm below the permissible floor area.

 

Clause 16A – Character of local area

The planning principle in Project Venture Developments Pty Ltd v Pittwater Council can be used as a reference in determining the compatibility of the proposal against the character of the local area.  In the Project Venture matter it was accepted that buildings can exist together in harmony without having the same density, scale and appearance.

 

It is considered that the character of the proposal is satisfactory with the existing surrounds and expected future character dictated by the LEP controls, as well as the detailed DCP controls.  It meets the character test required under Clause 16A of SEPP – Affordable Rental Housing.  In addition the ‘Urban Design Review Panel’ has not raised any concerns to the streetscape impact, instead commending the design outcome. 

 

The proposed built form and character of the development will be compatible with the form of development permissible under the R3 – Medium Density zoning, particularly along the front elevation facing Dolphin Street where the development has a wall and an overall height that is within the 8m maximum wall height control and mostly within the 9.5m limit under the RLEP 2012. The only projecting element at the front is a minor protrusion of the roof that is setback 6.5m from the frontage along Dolphin Street, which is significantly greater than the 3m minimum front setback control under the RDCP 2013 – Part C2 Medium Density residential development. Notwithstanding, the proposed development exceeds by a greater degree the wall and overall height controls and standards moving away from the front along Dolphin Street down to the rear due to the steep slope of land. This fall in land level is inherent in several properties along this side of Dolphin Street and the resultant built form will be less noticeable from street level. Moreover, it will not be dissimilar to the massing of other flat buildings in Dolphin Street with similar topographies.

 

In terms of overall scale and built form, the proposed development is considered to fit in with the scale of the adjoining residential flat buildings at No. 27 and 31 Dolphin Street as demonstrated in plan excerpts shown in figures 1 & 2 below.

 

 

Figure 8: plan excerpt of southern front elevation of proposed development and adjoining existing developments at No. 27 and 31 Dolphin Street.

Figure 9: Plan excerpt of northern rear elevation of proposed development and adjoining developments at No. 27 and 31 Dolphin Street

 

Having regard to the above matters, the proposed bulk and scale, due to the FSR bonuses offered by the ARH SEPP, are well distributed in the form of minor extension to the existing envelope with the upper level unit contained largely within a habitable roof form which is consistent with both the intent of Part C2 of the Medium Density Residential policy guidelines in the RDCP 2013. In addition, the exceedances to the 9.5m maximum permissible height and the 8m maximum wall height will not result in any detrimental impact to the character of the immediate neighbouring properties or the character of the local area in general as shown in the following RLEP plan excerpts below showing the applicable FSR, Height and zones in the immediate and surrounding area. In this respect, the FSR map shown in figure 4 below shows that further east, towards the intersection of Carrington Road and Dolphin Street, the FSR standard applicable within the R3 zone alternates to a higher 0.9:1 density and even higher 1.5:1 density in the B1- Neighbourhood Centre zoned site. In relation to height, moving eastward the height standards applied to the higher density R3 zone and B1 zone a 12m height limit is permitted.

 

Figure 4: RLEP applicable FSR (not including bonus afforded for infil development).

 

Figure 5: Height limits under the RLEP 2012

 

Figure 6: Zoning map under the RLEP 2012

 

Overall, the proposed built form along the Dolphin Street frontage is consistent with that envisaged by the RLEP and RDCP controls; the area where the development exceeds the maximums is located further within the site which will not detract from the streetscape. Further still, given the zoning context, the proposal is also considered compatible with the likely emerging character of the area, with higher densities expected within the vicinity, further east along Dolphin Street, Carrington Road and Bream Streets.  The development will respect the transition from the higher density built forms within these nearby areas and immediate surrounds. The proposed development is considered to meet the character test.

 

Apartment Design Guide

 

3B-2 Orientation

 

The ADG requires a minimum of two hours of direct solar access be provided to the affected neighbour’s between the hours of 9am – 3pm, mid-winter. The proposed additions to the residential flat building do not comply with this requirement for the west facing living room windows in No. 31 Dolphin Street however this is a consequence of the previous DA approval.

 

The ADG acknowledges difficulties in providing a compliant solar access and it may not be possible on some sites due to orientation and responding to existing and desired streetscape character. The site already contains a flat building and an approved development and thus preexisting side setbacks and requiring a greater setback would be antipathetic to ensuring the development retains a built form that is not disjointed but rather integrates with the built form of the existing as well as the prevailing built form and scales on surrounding properties.

 

In addition, the development is considered to be of a reasonable building envelope for the following reasons:

 

The overall building height is considered a reasonable outcome having regard to the Clause 4.6 exception assessed above.

The proposed development is located towards the front ensuring that additional shadows are mostly cast towards the front along Dolphin Street

The overshadowing that occurs on respective eastern and western side elevations of flat buildings is not dissimilar to the shadowing that occurs from other developments along this side of Dolphin Street

The development is reasonably sized and sited and the overshadowing impacts can be directly attributed to the existing setbacks and

The development is for the purposes of affordable housing which is considered to be a higher order planning principle.

 

•      3F-1 Visual Privacy

 

In order to achieve appropriate levels of visual privacy, the ADG requires a minimum building separation of 6 metres (combined 12m) from habitable rooms to the boundaries and 3 metres from non-habitable rooms for buildings up to 4 storey’s in height.

 

In relation to visual privacy, the design guidance requirements seek to minimise direct sightlines which can be achieved by adopting practical privacy measures. The side setbacks are short of the ADG control and given the significant size of the upper level rear terrace to unit 5 which has the capacity for both overlooking as well as acoustic privacy impacts it is considered reasonable to require a reduction in the depth of the terrace to a maximum of 2m from the northern elevation of the unit. This will bring the size of the terrace to the minimum required under the ADG controls and therefore satisfy the guiding principle.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

The RDCP 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 RDCP controls may be considered where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome. Hence, the consent authority must be flexible in its application and consider reasonable alternative solutions, to achieve the objectives of the RDCP Controls. The key issues identified in the assessment of the application relate to Part B7 relating to parking and Part D2 of the RDCP relating to the controls and objectives for the Kingsford Centre.

 

As noted previously, it is to be expected that where a planning control provides for a development bonus (in the way of additional floor area) to achieve outcomes such as the encouragement of more affordable housing, that other envelope or density controls may subsequently be affected. Accordingly, the proposal has been designed to capitalise on the available FSR bonus, which is reflected in relatively minor variations to the side setbacks, building separation and external wall height which are detailed below.

 

Side Setbacks

The proposed extension of the walls along the western and eastern side boundary is 0.558m and 0.4m respectively. The variance can be supported on the following grounds:

 

§    The variances are minor. 

§    The side setbacks for the upper level dormer additions are increased above the minimum requirement.

§    The varied setbacks will provide good articulation along the sides of the building.

§    The variance will not restrict any common access ways, landscaped zones or private open spaces.

§    The proposed side setbacks for the additional walls are located over the existing and the additional walls will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the ability of the adjoining buildings retaining adequate levels of light or ventilation

§    The streetscape rhythm of setbacks will be maintained

§    The variance will not significantly impact on the visual amenity and outlook from the development and adjoining residences in comparison to the existing situation.

§    A compliant situation will not improve the privacy in comparison to a compliant situation. 

§    A compliant situation will not appreciably improve solar access and onsite amenity for the development and the adjoining residences.

 

Visual Privacy

The proposed terraces to the rear of the upper level unit will result in overlooking and potential for adverse noise impacts. The measures considered sufficient to minimise these impacts include reducing the depth of the terrace to a maximum of 2m.

 

Openings on the side elevations of the upper level unit have 1.6m sill heights ensuring no overlooking. 

 

External Wall Height

 

The proposed development has wall heights along the eastern and western side elevations of between 9m and 9.356m exceeding the 8m maximum external wall height control in the RDCP. However as indicated earlier, the ARH SEPP allows for a FSR bonus and there is a reasonable expectation that the external wall height as discussed in the Exception to the development standard earlier, that the overall building height will be higher to accommodate the bonus.  The RDCP control for external wall height (8m) plus that which relates to side setbacks only cater for standard residential flat buildings and do not reflect circumstances in which State policies allow for bonuses to the FSR.  Where local building envelope controls conflict with the provisions of the State policies, the State controls prevail.  This follows therefore, that with any gross floor area bonus; and the requirement for reasonably adequate floor-to-ceiling heights it means that the resultant external wall height needs be balanced with the need to limit the amenity impacts.

 

In most circumstances where a variation is proposed along the buildings, it is the extra height that is necessary to achieve the minimum floor-to-ceiling heights that results in the non-compliance with the 8m height control. In this respect the applicant has been amended and redesigned as a roof form with dormers rather than a full storey as proposed originally.  This and other measures as employed also minimise the extent of non-compliance and amenity impacts.  With respect to the development and its side elevations, the variance to the external wall height will only be a minor extension to the walls below with the majority of the habitable component accommodated with dormers set further back from the side elevations and the neighbouring buildings.  This design ensures appropriate articulation along the side elevations avoiding extensive sheers walls in vertical and horizontal manifestations which also helps to counteract additional overshadowing and adverse visual amenity.

 

A similar approach has been applied to the treatment of the front and rear elevations.  The front elevation wall sections achieve general compliance with the 9.5m height limit.  In this regard the variance is supported.  With respect to the rear elevation the outer wall height will be well above the 8m external wall height maximum under the RDCP; however this is an inherent characteristic of the two neighbouring buildings which have similarly high walls along the rear where the land level is lowest adjacent to the buildings.

 

Given the lower form of the stepped in dormers and hipped roof surrounding it is considered that despite the variance to the external wall height there is general consistency in the massing of other buildings on sites with similar topographies. As well, in the absence of no unreasonable impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties it is considered that the variance to the external wall height is acceptable.

 

Solar Access – Impact on Neighbours

The orientation of the subject and neighbouring sites on north south axis, is such that overshadowing is shared across the two neighbouring residential flat buildings and not to the detriment of any single neighbour.

 

It is noted that the main massing of the proposed development that is that associated with as a result of unit 5 being located more towards the front of the site whereby there will be very limited additional overshadowing to the neighbour’s living room windows facing the respective side boundaries. In other words, the additional overshadowing caused by the proposed development is very minor and will generally be cast onto non-habitable rooms having particular regards to the shadow cast onto the eastern elevation of the neighbour’s living room windows. The main cause of overshadowing to both neighbours side facing living room windows is caused by the approved development (DA/720/2012) located at the rear of the existing flat building.

 

Overall, it is considered that the proposed development does not result in any unreasonable overshadowing to the neighbour’s side facing living room windows.

 

·      Parking

 

The proposed development results in an additional shortfall of one parking space which is a total shortfall of 2.4 parking spaces when considered in the context of the approved development under DA/720/2012 which had a shortfall of 1.4 spaces. The building currently comprises of 4 x 1 bedroom apartments and no off-street parking is provided on the site. The property experiences a parking deficiency of 5 spaces which can be applied as a parking credit. Under the development approved as part of DA/720/2012 (which did not increase the number of dwellings) there was an increase in the number of bedrooms within the dwellings, thereby increasing the generated parking demand by 1.4 spaces.

 

The original application received by Council seeking 2 x 1 bedroom affordable rental dwelling units under the subject DA generated an additional parking demand of 1 space, (SEPP Affordable Rental Housing requires 0.5 spaces per 1 bedroom dwelling) increasing the parking demand in combination with the approved development under DA/720/2012) to a shortfall of 2.4 spaces.

 

The amended development application does not alter this shortfall as it is seeking a 2 bedroom apartment which also requires an additional one parking space under the ARH SEPP.

 

In consideration of the 2.4 spaces parking shortfall the following is noted as sufficient reasoning for support of the application:

 

There is no opportunity to provide further off-street parking as the front setback is less than 5.4m which is the minimum length of carspace and the side setbacks are less than 3.0m which is the minimum width for a driveway which could have potentially provided access to parking at the rear.

 

The site is well served by  public transport with bus stops serving routes 313 (Coogee-Bondi Junction) and 374 (City-Coogee)  approximately 200m to the east on Carrington Road with typical frequencies of 10-30 minutes. In addition bus stops serving route 370 (Coogee-Leichardt via UNSW and USYD) are 250m to the south on Coogee Bay.

 

The site is within 10-15min walk of shops and facilities at Coogee Beach

 

The site is in close proximity to a number of carshare pods operated by Goget carshare including one in Dolphin Street itself, St Lukes Street and Courland Street

 

Some limited on-street parking was observed to be available at the time of site inspection and whilst it is considered that the proposed development represents  a small increase in parking demand the demand for parking in the area is high and

 

The proposed additional unit in conjunction with an existing unit on site being sought for the higher planning purpose of affordable rental housing

 

Overall, in consideration of the parking shortfall within the context of the above factors and the absence of any significant adverse impacts on the character of the street or the amenity of neighbouring properties it is considered that the shortfall in parking created as a result of the proposed development is supported.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and non-compliances occur are adequately addressed in the assessment of the application and will not result in any unreasonable or significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.  That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 333/2015 for Alterations and additions to existing residential flat building for a 1 x 2 bedroom unit (unit 5) with study in a roof form redesigned with dormer elements and allocation of 2 units as affordable rental housing (unit3 and unit 5), at No. 29 Dolphin Street, Randwick, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Non-standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.      The upper level rear terrace must be reduced in depth by 2.2 metres allowing for a maximum depth of 2.2m measured from the northern elevation of the habitable living room.

 

b.      The privacy screens along the eastern and western sides of the upper level rear terrace must have a height of 1.6m above the terrace floor level. The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

Affordable Rental Housing Component

3.       A plan to be submitted to Council identifying units 3 & 5 as being provided for affordable rental housing.

 

The specific dwellings identified for affordable rental housing shall be indicated on the stamped approved Construction Certificate plans, a copy of which should be submitted to Council.

 

a.  The dwellings to be used for the purposes of ‘affordable rental housing’, as per the provisions of the SEPP shall be used as such for at least 10 years from the date of the issue of the occupation certificate.

 

b.  The affordable rental housing component (secured for a minimum of 10 years) must be managed by a registered Community Housing Provider (CHP).  The CHP must ensure compliance with the occupant restriction and others provisions of the regulatory code established through regulations under the Housing Act 2001.

 

c.   A restriction must be registered, before the date of the issue of the occupation certificate, against the title of the property, in accordance with Section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919, that will ensure that the requirements a. and b. are met and that the terms of restriction may not be varied without Council’s consent.

 

d.  Prior to an occupation certificate being granted, evidence must be provided to Council demonstrating that the section 88E covenant has been registered on the title stating that the affordable rental housing component must be used for affordable rental housing and managed by a registered CHP.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 29 Dolphin Street, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 July 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D59/16

 

Subject:                  120 Brook Street, Coogee (DA/308/2015)

Folder No:               DA/308/2015

Author:                    Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                 Demolition of the existing structure on site and construction of a 4 storey mixed use building comprising of a retail premises at ground floor level, 11 dwellings and two basement level car park for 30 vehicles, associated site and landscape works (variation to building height control)

Ward:                      East Ward

Applicant:               Architecture & Building Works Pty Ltd

Owner:                    East No.2 Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=9fdf519d-755b-4d56-8425-614eac7b4589&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is reported to the Planning Committee for determination as the estimated cost of the development exceeds $2 Million and the proposed building height exceeds the standard under Clause 4.3: height of buildings by more than 10%. An independent peer review of the assessment by an external planning consultant was also undertaken as a Council employee is related to one of the owners of the subject site.

 

1.       Proposal

 

The proposal seeks approval for a mixed – use (retail and residential) development, containing two basements, ground floor retail and residential uses and two upper floors of residential units.

 

In detail the proposed development involves the following:

 

·      Demolition of the existing building on the site and construction of mixed use building containing two levels of basement car parking, ground floor plus 2 upper levels.

·      The two basement carpark levels provide 30 car spaces inclusive of 4 disabled spaces, bicycle and motor – cycle parking, lift and stair access to upper levels, access ramps, and some additional unit storage.

·      The ground level includes a retail/commercial tenancy of 90m², residential entry and lobby, 2 x 2 bedroom residential units with courtyards, services areas, garbage storage (commercial and residential), vehicular ramp access to the basement and lift and stair access to the basement and upper levels.

·      The first floor and second floor contains 4 x 2 bedroom units all with terraces, lift and stair access being provided to all floors including basement level.

·      The third floor contains a 1 x 3 bedroom penthouse with two terraces, lift and stair access being provided to lower floors and basement level.

 

Amended plans have been received by Council on 24 March 2016 to address a number of concerns raised by the Design Review Panel and Council.

 

A summary of the changes made are as follows:

 

·      The building is setback from the street 2.5metres to mediate between the setback of 118 Brook Street and 122 Brook Street.

·             The building footprint has been reduced by setting back the basement levels from the western boundary to provide deep soil area with soft landscaping to entire western rear boundary.

·      The number of parking spaces has been reduced from 30 to 21+1 carwash bay.

·      The driveway width has been decreased in order to maximise the retail frontage. Also corner glazing is provided to the retail and services adjacent to the driveway have been moved next to the southern boundary.

·      The residential lobby is now wider and more visible from the street.

·      The two ground floor units are replaced with two ‘SOHO Apartments’, which are two storey units with home office on the ground floor and a studio on the first floor level.

·      The unit mix has changed as follows:

-    Original DA - 10 x 2 bed units & 1 x 3 bed unit

-    Revised DA - 2 Soho apartments, 7 x 2 bed units and 2 x 3 bed units

 

·      The three upper floors are now aligned from the front street view rather than having a setback to the top floor.

·      The side setbacks have been increased to be similar to neighbourind buildings.

 

North setback    -   Original DA- 1.025m

-   Revised- 1.61m

South setback -     Original DA - 1.025m

-   Revised- 2.24m

·      Side balconies have been deleted.

·      The internal stair connecting the four levels of the buildings is now open.

·      Material changes to the building. Brick construction with rendered concrete slabs and timber screenings are the main materials used on the building.

 

2.       Site & surrounding locality

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Brook Street between Coogee Bay Road to the north and Kidman Street to the south and is identified as Lot 1 in DP 542982. The site is regular in shape, with a frontage of 20.065m to Brook Street and a depth of 36.575m. The site has a total area of 733.9m2 approximately.

 

The site is bound on both its northern side and western (rear) boundaries by retaining walls, with the rear retaining wall achieving an approximate height of 2.83m at its southern end. The site has a fall of 1.53m approximately (south to north) across its Brook Street frontage.  Existing on the site is a two level commercial building of brick construction (refer Figure 1). A driveway on the northern side of the site provides access to parking at the rear.

 

This section of Brook Street is characterised by a mix of two, three and four storey residential buildings constructed in various architectural styles, interspersed with some commercial buildings, including the subject site and the Commonwealth Bank building occupying the south-western corner of Brook Street and Coogee Bay Road.

Located on the adjoining site to the north (No. 118 Brook Street) is a three (3) storey face brick Inter-war residential flat building.  It is sited relatively close to the street boundary with a small front yard and bounded by a low stepped face brick fence. It is also stepped back from the both its side boundaries and features timber framed windows along the side facades. Further north, located on the corner of Brook Street and Coogee Bay Road is the Commonwealth Bank building, which is part two/part three storeys of brick and glass construction.

 

Figure 1: The existing subject site and adjoining development.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards

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, 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 variations are addressed as follows:

 

Maximum Building Height Control

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

 

The proposed variation is summarized in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.3 (2)

Height of buildings

12m

13.425m at the north-east corner of the building

No- Clause 4.6 variation submitted

11.88%

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

  

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

 

Clause 4.6 Variation

The proposal exceeds the statutory height limit within the Randwick LEP 2012, due the substantial fall of the host site. The variation ranges between 600mm and 13.425m along the northern elevation of the site.  The required parapets, lift overrun and fire stairs and a triangulated portion of the proposed 3rd floor breach the height limit. While only portions of the building are higher than the LEP limit a request to vary to the standard is required and is provided below for Council’s consideration.

 

Clause 4.6 of the LEP outlines the matters to be considered by Council where a proposal seeks to vary a numerical standard contained within the LEP. The relevant parts of the clause and comments thereon in relation to the proposal are shown below

 

4.6  Exceptions to development standards

(1)     The objectives of this clause are:

 

(a)   to provide an appropriate degree of flexibility in applying certain development standards to particular development, and

(b)   to achieve better outcomes for and from development by allowing flexibility in particular circumstances……..

Comment

Objective (a) provides the impetus for the clause in confirming its intention for flexibility in the application of development standards. This integrates well with a number of the Aims of the LEP, contained within Clause 1.2 as shown below:

 

(b) to support a diverse local economy and business and employment opportunities for the community,

 

(c) to support efficient use of land, vibrant centres, integration of land use and transport, and an appropriate mix of uses,

 

(d) to achieve a high standard of design in the private and public domain that enhances the quality of life of the community,

 

(e) to promote sustainable transport, public transport use, walking and cycling,……

 

(f)  to encourage the provision of housing mix and tenure choice, including affordable and adaptable housing, that meets the needs of people of different ages and abilities in Randwick,

 

In varying the LEP height standard these objectives are adhered to in that the proposal achieves a balanced development outcome, between two existing buildings of similar height in a falling streetscape. The desired future character in terms of building envelope is set by the LEP control and in generally meeting its numerical standard and intent, the proposal satisfies the intended future character. The built form outcome will be one of quality, with care taken in the design phase to ensure that any impacts to surrounding properties and the public domain are ameliorated.

 

Finally, the location of the site close to the Coogee commercial centre and beach promotes walking and public transport use.

 

The terms of objective (b) of Clause 4.6 are particularly relevant as it introduces the desired achievement from objective (a) in providing a better outcome, from applying a flexible approach. In the circumstances of this proposal a better outcome is achieved by varying the relevant height and FSR standard through:

 

The re invigoration of a bland masonry commercial building with a new vibrant modern building, that although greater in height, respects its surroundings and reduces its impact on nearby residential properties.

 

The increased height of the building is minor and a consequence of the fall in the land only. It does not arise from an attempt to overdevelop the site or a breach of the FSR standard. The upper floor is set back further from the side boundaries and is lower than its southern neighbour and above the eaves of the northern side building.

 

The greater height on Brook Street is not readily evident from the public domain, due to the fall in the land as one walks up and down the street.

 

That part of the proposed building that is easily read from Brook Street will be the parapet above the second floor which is compliant. The setback of the upper level will ensure that it will not easily be read from the public domain.

 

The lack of impact in terms of privacy, solar access and amenity from the proposal and its respect of the existing adjoining residential properties in Brook Street.

 

The provision of a development that maximises the opportunity for people to work within the community where they live and support local centres therefore reducing the impact on both private and public transport services. This is an integral intention of the B2 Local Centre zoning as evidenced by the following objectives of that zone:

 

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

 

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

 

A better planning outcome can also be considered in terms of the potential impact of the proposal from the increased height on the public domain and in an urban design sense. Any assessment of these issues must consider the proposal in terms of the context of the site, its built form, the need for residential development in the locality and the design parameters of SEPP 65 and the Randwick DCP.

 

It may be suggested in certain submissions that all of the above benefits could be achieved by a smaller compliant development. However, the economic capacity of such a proposal would not be sufficient to sustain the upgrade of the built form and its capacity to provide commercial and residential variety and opportunities not currently available.

 

Subsection (3) of Clause 4.6 states as follows:

 

(3)     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.

 

In assessing whether or not compliance with the development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances of the case, it may be worth considering the principles laid down in the Land and Environment Court judgement of Cripps J. in Hooker Corporation Pty Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council.

 

In that decision the Court was considering an objection to a development standard under SEPP 1 and his Honour set out a number of important principles for consideration of such an objection.  While an objection under SEPP 1 is not contemplated in this case, two of the principles set out in that judgement are relevant to the subject proposal. These are:

 

·      It must be assumed that a development standard has a purpose; and,

 

·      It is not to be used as a means to affect general planning change

 

Clause 4.3 of the LEP contains objectives that clearly indicate the purpose of the height control, although not all are relevant to the current proposal. Each of the objectives is set out below with a discussion in relation to the proposal.

 

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

 

Comment: The desired future character of the area is for a renewal of the existing built form providing a wide range of business and residential opportunities to support the local community as set out in the zone objectives.

 

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

 

Comment: There are two Items of Environmental Heritage near to the site in Brook Street. However, given the eclectic nature of the built form in the locality the proposed building is unlikely to negatively impact on those Items. As previously determined by the NSW Land & Environment Court, compatible does not mean the same or matching, so some variation in design is contemplated in the objective.

 

(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.

 

Comment: The upper floor of the building is set back from the second floor roof podium, which is the component of the building from which shadow will be cast. As this point is lower than the maximum permissible height under the LEP any impact from shadows will be commensurate with that expected under the relevant Planning framework.

 

The building will site well in the streetscape with its perceptible height from the ground plane in the main being the ground and two upper floors. The third floor being set back will not be as clearly visible or perceptively bulky, sitting higher than one and lower than the other of its adjoining buildings. As the windows in the side elevations are restricted to bathrooms (highlight) and bedrooms (low use rooms) privacy loss to adjoining buildings is unlikely.

 

For all of these reasons the proposed building height although partially higher than the LEP 12m maximum is considered to be reasonable and accords with the intent of the objectives of Clause 4.3 of the LEP.

 

Clause 4.6 (3) then goes on to require:

 

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

 

In conclusion, it is submitted that an assessment undertaken against the relevant planning framework indicates that the proposal is an acceptable one. It will, if approved, provide a benefit to the community and will not impact negatively on the amenity of nearby residents.

 

There are no other provisions of the LEP that are relevant to the proposed development.

 

Earlier in this report the relevant zone objectives and the proposal’s conformity with them was discussed and found to be acceptable. Rather than repeating the reasons why the proposal meets those environmental planning grounds, it may be appropriate (for the purposes of this question) to consider the variation to the height standard in terms of the environmental amenity and aesthetic character of the area.

 

In considering the environmental amenity one looks at impacts such as overshadowing, privacy/ overlooking, view loss, visual domination etc. These provide an indication of a proposal’s suitability and reflect the matters for consideration under Section 79C of the Act. These matters have been discussed above in relation to the objectives of the zone and it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in that regard. Further discussion of these matters is unnecessary.

 

Visual domination is an issue more generally associated with perceptions from the public domain and from multi storey buildings. This issue has also been discussed previously, with the setback of the third floor considered to substantially reduce any perception of the building as dominating its surroundings.

 

In determining the aesthetic character of the area it is reasonable to review the type and form of development existing in the vicinity of the site. In this regard it must be noted that the zoning change between the B2 and R3 zones occurs at the site’s southern and western common property boundaries, with no transition zone.

 

The LEP permits maximum heights of 12m in both zones the commercial land with a reduction in FSR to 0.9:1 on the residentially zoned land. However, the current adjoining buildings are similar in height and size to the propose building and substantially greater in FSR than 0.9:1. These buildings are similar to a large number of nearby building stock and it could  be suggested that they set the built form outcome for the area. In this context the proposal will not impact negatively on the aesthetic character of the area.

 

In light of this detailed assessment it would appear that neither the environmental amenity nor the aesthetic character of the area, are detrimentally impacted by the proposal and the proposed variations to the LEP height standard. In this sense it is fair to say that the underlying purpose of the standard has been met.

 

Clause 4.6 of the LEP goes on further to relevantly state:

 

(2)     Consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

 

(a)    the consent authority is satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

(b)   the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

 

Comment: These matters have previously been considered and are positively demonstrated by the proposal. The Director General has formally delegated his function to Council.

 

(5)         In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider:

 

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

 

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

 

(c)    any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director-General before granting concurrence……….

 

Comment: No matters of State or Regional Environment Planning significance are compromised, nor will the proposed development create any environmental impact as indicated throughout this report.

 

The integrity and longevity of the provisions of the LEP should the variation in the height standard be granted by Council is a correct and proper consideration in the assessment of any development proposal. As shown in this report the LEP itself provides for flexibility in appropriate circumstances, such as in the case of the subject proposal.

 

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

 

·      The proposed bulk and scale represents a minor encroachment on the permissible height limit. Overall, the proposal has a similar bulk and scale to the surrounding development and neighbouring mixed use buildings.  Refer to Figures 1 & 2 Below.

 

·      The non-compliant portion of the building height does not manifest in any unreasonable adverse environmental impact in terms of visual bulk, overshadowing, view loss or privacy impacts to adjoining and neighbouring land as discussed in the relevant section of this report and compliance report.

 

·      The scale and built form will reflect the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape and in the immediate locality.  The proposed building envelope will be generally similar with the setback and separation of adjoining buildings and will provide reasonable amenity between neighbouring properties. 

 

·      There will be no unreasonable additional overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring properties. Majority of the additional overshadowing is largely due to the east-west orientation of the site rather than the development being of poor design.   The shadow diagram submitted demonstrates a compliant development with a setback of 3m and 12m in height will result in greater shadows than the proposed development as the third floor level is setback greater than 3m from the boundary.  Refer to Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar access and overshadowing for detailed assessment.

 

·      The proposal does not result in any unreasonable view loss impacts to adjoining properties as discussed in the view loss section below of this report.

 

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

 

·     The Statement of Heritage Impact and heritage officer verifies that the height will not have a negative impact on the neighbouring heritage items;

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

 

·      The proposed development is consistent with the zone objectives.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Figure 2: Southern Elevation

 

 

Figure 3: Northern Elevation

 

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 B2 - Local Centre) are:

 

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

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

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

 

The proposed development is permissible within the B2 Local Centre 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 local centre.

 

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 B2 Local Centre.

 

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.

 

3.       Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification on two occasions. As a result of the first notification two supporting letter and 16 submissions were received.  The issues in the submission were related to the height of the development, view loss impacts, privacy, reduce solar access and overshadowing impacts, potential structural damage to apartments, traffic impacts and removal of the post office.

 

As a result of the second notification period, the following submissions were received:

 

·      122 Brook Street, Coogee:

-   Unit 1/122 Brook Street, Coogee

-   Unit 4/122 Brook Street, Coogee

-   Unit 5/122 Brook Street, Coogee

-   Unit 8/122 Brook Street, Coogee

-   Unit 11/122 Brook Street, Coogee

-   Unit 12/122 Brook Street, Coogee

·      Unit 6/10-12 Kidman Street, Coogee

·      2-4 Kidman Street, Coogee

·      118 Brook Street, Coogee

·      Unit 4/118 Brook Street, Coogee

·      Unit 5/3 Nathan Street, Coogee

·      Unit 8/181-183 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

View sharing

The proposed development will obstruct views to the north and north east of the ocean and Coogee headland. 

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which addresses view sharing.

 

The amended proposal presents a reasonable outcome that is of commensurate height and setbacks with adjacent development.  When assessed against the view sharing principle, discussed below, the proposal is considered acceptable.

 

Devaluation of property

Devaluation of property value due to natural light restrictions and view loss.

 

Noted.  However, devaluation of property value is not considered to be a planning related matter, which can be addressed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

Building height & material

The proposal is over the height limit set out in the LEP and is over the number of storeys allowable under the DCP.

 

The size, height and scale of the development is not compatible with the desired future character of Brook Street. 

 

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report which demonstrates the variation to the height of Building standard of Clause 4.3 of RLEP 2012 has merit and the amended proposal is considered to match the bulk and scale of other residential and mixed use development in the neighbourhood. 

 

It is not anticipated that the wall height of the lift shaft will result in substantial visual impacts to the neighouring units at no. 122 Brook Street.  The lift shaft is setback 2.625m from the southern side boundary which is considered to be adequate separation between the buildings and therefore, should not be too overbearing.

 

Roof material

Concerned of material used to construct the roof will act as reflective heat surface.

 

A condition is included to ensure the rood material is non-reflective.

 

Solar access & side setback

The proposal does not comply with the side setback controls set out in the DCP and will result in additional overshadowing impacts.

 

The shadow diagrams submitted demonstrate that the proposed development will comply with the objectives of the solar access requirements to adjoining sites.

 

Refer to Key Issues section of this report, which addresses Solar Access and Overshadowing to neighbouring properties and Side setbacks.

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

The windows facing south from the development will be directly imposing on the resident’s amenity at no. 122 Brook Street.  Note that the timber façade will help with privacy; however, it does not help with light pollution or noise.

 

 

It is not anticipated that the proposed windows openings along the southern or northern elevations will result in unacceptable visual or acoustical privacy concerns.  The window openings facing the side boundaries are to bedrooms and bathrooms which are considered to be low use rooms.  The windows to the bedrooms are highlight windows which restricts overlooking into neighbouring buildings.  As noted timber external screens are provided to the bathroom windows.  This is considered sufficient in providing reasonable levels of privacy between the properties.

Parking & traffic

The proposed 30 car spaces will cause long term noise pollution during construction and increase car traffic along Brook Street.

 

A construction site & traffic management plan will be required as conditions of consent which should address this concern.

RLEP

The proposal is in direct violation of the LEP in relation to the FSR and R3 Medium Density Residential height restrictions.

 

The scale and built form will reflect the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape and in the immediate locality.  The proposed building envelope will be generally similar with the setback and separation of adjoining buildings and will provide reasonable amenity between neighbouring properties. 

 

The proposed size and scale of the building generally commensurate with the desired future character that is anticipated by the built form controls contained in RLEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013.

Dilapidation Report

Concerns regarding structural damage. Requested that a dilapidation report be completed for the affected properties. 

 

A condition is included within the consent which requires a dilapidation report to be prepared to ensure that the development is safely engineered and adjoining properties are protected during excavation and construction.

Australia Post

Concern about the impact of the proposed development to the Australia Post Office which currently serves the entire community of Coogee.

Noted.  However, this issue is not considered to be a planning related matter, which can be addressed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

Health

Request that ‘No Smoking’ outdoor sign be place in the rear garden areas.

The statutory laws that apply to residential places apply to common areas only.

Smoking in enclosed common areas to which the public has access is prohibited under the NSW Smoke-free Environment Act 2000. Such areas may include main entrances and stairwells. They do not include secured areas within security buildings that are only accessible through invitation by an owner or occupier and therefore, cannot be enforced.

 

A NSW Health Department fact sheet on the Smoke-free Environment Act as it relates to strata and community schemes can be accessed on the NSW Health Department internet site.  

 

4.       Key Issues

 

·      Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2013

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

1.5:1

1.47:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

12 metres

13.58 metres

No*

 

*See exceptions to development standards below.

 

3D-1 Communal Open Space 

The ADG requirements prescribe a minimum area of 25% of the site is to be provided as communal open space. The communal courtyard area at the ground floor at the rear of the site measures only 5.2m² (or 36.4%) and is significantly below the minimum requirements for communal open space. However, the design guidance requirements prescribe that sites within business zones or in dense urban areas should:

·      Provide communal spaces elsewhere such as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room

·      Provide larger balconies or increased private open space for apartments.

·      Demonstrate good proximity to public open space and facilities and/or provide contributions to public open space.

 

The proposed development provides additional courtyard areas to the rear of the SOHO apartments with dimensions of 7m x 7m (or 49m²) and 6m x 7m (or 49m²).  All apartments have generous sized private balconies or terrace areas particularly the 3 Bedroom apartments which have areas of 21m² and 54m².  Communal open space is directly accessible from the main lobby area to accommodate for passive surveillance.

 

In addition to this, the ADG requires that a 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 proposed meets this requirement.

 

Given that all the apartments have sufficient private open spaces and have dual aspect which maximises on solar access and energy efficiency the non-compliance to the Communal Open Space is considered justifiable.

 

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.”

 

The subject site is not located within the foreshore scenic protection area. However, a number of submissions have been received from neighbouring properties in relation to view loss.  The following properties have been investigated to determine if the proposal resulted in any view loss impacts:

 

·      Units 5, 8 & 12/122 Brook Street, Coogee

·      Unit 6/10-12 Kidman Street, Coogee

 

A view impact analysis was undertaken by Architectural and Building Works and some of the photos have been used as part of the assessment of this application.  Council’s Assessment Officer has also undertaken an independent assessment of the view sharing impacts and two of the above affected properties have been visited.

 

The aerial photograph in Figure 4 below identifies the properties that have objected to the proposed development on the grounds of view loss. The properties in question are identified in red and the yellow arrows indicate the direction of the views.  The views are obtained in a north easterly and easterly direction above the roof top of the subject and neighbouring properties.  The views include Coogee headland and a very small horizontal band of ocean views of Coogee Bay.

 

There are no iconic views that will be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Figure 4: Site analysis plan identifying views currently enjoyed.

 

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.

 

·      Unit 5/122 Brook Street, Coogee

Unit 5 is located on the first floor level towards the front of the building.  The views obtained are distant ocean and district views of Coogee. The views of the bedroom are obtained across the front boundary whereas the views from the living room window are obtained across the side boundary.

 

Figure 5 below indicates that majority of the views from the living room window of this unit are already blocked by existing development. Views are obtained on an oblique angle across the side boundary in a north easterly direction as identified in figure 4 above.  The views are mainly obtained from a standing position.

 

The view in question is very minor and is a small horizontal band of distant ocean and district view as indicated in red hashed line in figure 5 below.  To obtain this view you will need to stand very close to the window.  The images in figure 5 below are taken at two different angles.  The image to the left is the direct view taken close up to the window, whereas the view to the right is taken outside the window which is not the true image. The bedroom window facing the front of the property will not be impacted by the proposed development.  Refer to figure 6 below.

 

Figure 5: Existing angled view from the living room window         

 

Figure 6: View taken from bedroom window

 

·      Unit 8/122 Brook Street, Randwick

Unit 8 is located on the first floor level towards the rear of the building. 

 

The views from the living room and bedrooms from this unit are similar to the images projected below in figure 7.

 

Figure 7 below indicates that majority of the views from the living room and bedroom windows of this unit are already blocked by existing development. Views are obtained on an oblique angle across the side boundary in an easterly direction as identified in figure 4 above.  The views are only from a standing position.

 

The view in question is very minor and is a small horizontal band of distant ocean and district view as indicated in red hashed line in figure 7 below.  This image is taken directly outside the window. 

 

Figure 7:  Existing angled view from the living room window

 

 

Unit 12/122 Brook Street, Randwick

Unit 12 is located on the second floor level towards the rear of the building.  The views in figures 8 and 9 are from the living room. To obtain this view you will need to stand very close up to the window.   The image in figure 8 is taken on a north easterly angle close up to the window which is the actual view, whereas the view in figure 9 which is taken by the applicant is directly outside the window and is not the true view you will see when inside the living room.

 

The view in question is horizontal band of distant ocean view and headland of Coogee Bay.  Views are obtained on an oblique angle across the side boundary in a north easterly direction as identified in figure 4 above.  The views are mainly from a standing position.

 

The unit at no. 9/122 Brook Street, Coogee has not objected to the proposed development and therefore, was not investigated.  This unit is located on the second floor level towards the front of the dwelling. The views from this property will be similar to the images projected in Figures 8 & 9 below.  The bedroom window facing the front of the property will not be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Figure 8: View taken from the living room window in a north easterly direction

 

Figure 9: Close up view outside of the living room window taken by the applicant

 

Figure 10: View taken from the bedroom in a north easterly direction

 

·      Unit 6/10-12 Kidman Street, Coogee

Figure 11 below indicates that the corridor views from the public domain from the kitchen dining room windows.  Views are obtained on an oblique angle fronting Kidman Street over the roof tops of neighbouring properties. The views are distant; however are extensive views of Coogee headlands and ocean.  The views are mainly in an easterly direction and are obtained in siting and standing positions.

 

Figure 11:  Existing angled corridor view from the kitchen/dining room window        

 

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.”

 

·      Units 5, 8 & 12/122 Brook Street, Randwick

Figure 4 above demonstrates that the bedroom window facing the front of the building to Unit 5 will not be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Figure 10 below indicates the proposed views from Units 8 & 12 depending where positioned in the rooms will be unavoidably impacted by the proposed development.   The amended plans have increased the southern side boundary setback which will retain a small portion of the corridor views depending where you are positioned in the rooms as demonstrated in figure 10 below.   The extent of view loss is considered to be minor for Unit 5, moderate for Unit 8 and moderate to severe for Unit 12.

 

Figure 10: View of proposed development from the living room window of Unit 12

 

·      Unit6/10-12 Kidman Street, Coogee

Figure 11 below indicates the existing views from this property will be retained as the height of the building is below the view.

 

Figure 11: View of proposed development from the living room window

 

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.

 

Based on the above analysis, it is anticipated that the proposed development will not result in any significant material impact on the scenic views currently available to the investigated properties at no’s. 122 Brook Street, Coogee and Unit 6/10-12 Kidman Street, CoogeeGenerally, the views enjoyed by affected property at number 122 Brook Street are not extensive and not exclusively over the site.  Also, those parts of the views that are affected are oblique and already partly obstructed by existing and neighbouring buildings.  The only property that will be significantly impacted by the proposed development is the property at Unit 12/122 Brook Street, Coogee.  Notwithstanding the above, given that the view is from the side boundary and the expectation of retaining majority of these views would be unrealistic the extent of view loss in this circumstance is not considered to be unreasonable. 

 

Further, it would be unreasonable to refuse the application on the grounds of view loss when any compliant building height, FSR and setbacks will result in similar view loss impacts. 

 

The viewing corridor from the public domain of the ocean and Coogee headlands from Unit 6/10-12 Kidman Street, Coogee will not be impacted by the proposed development.

 

Following site inspections by Council, it was determined that the overall view-loss from surrounding properties is unavoidable and an adequate level of view sharing will be retained to the front and viewing corridors of the surrounding properties.

 

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 similar shop top and residential flat buildings in the neighbourhood and is an appropriate design that relates to the topography and its context. This area of non-compliance does not contribute to any additional view loss impacts to surrounding properties and therefore, a lower or smaller building will not significantly improve the views and as such changes would be unreasonable in-light of the minor impacts on views.

 

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.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

There are no specific controls that apply to sites that are located in a local centre zone.  However, the controls in Part D6 Neighbourhood Centres in the RDCP 2013 will be used as a commentary in relation to the relevant provisions of the DCP relating to this component.

 

Whilst Medium Density Residential provisions of the DCP do not strictly apply to shop top housing, the following is a commentary in relation to the relevant provisions of the DCP relating to this component.

 


 

Part D6 - Neighbourhood Centres

 

Sub-clause 2.3 - Building heights

In neighbourhood centres with a 12m maximum height limit, development must not exceed 3 storeys in height with the exception of habitable roof space/partial floor which must be setback so as not to be visible from the street or incorporated into the roof design to have the appearance of a roof rather than an additional storey).

 

The proposed development is 4 storey in height and has a maximum height limit of 13.425m.

 

An assessment of the non-compliance with maximum storey height limit of the development is therefore required against the following objectives under the DCP:

 

Objectives

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

·      To ensure appropriate floor to ceiling heights within commercial buildings and to enable flexibility of uses through higher floor to ceiling heights for ground floor development.

·      To achieve a consistent built street edge height.

 

The proposed development will satisfy the abovementioned objectives for the following reasons:

 

·      The number of storey is similar in height and scale of neighbouring buildings and therefore, the variation will not result in detrimental impacts on the visual quality and amenity of the public domain.

 

·      The massing of the walls along all elevations are well articulated and is achieved by using a mix in materials, openings and varying side setbacks that serve to both break up the expanses of wall across the elevations creating visual interest when viewed from the public domain and neighbouring properties, refer to figure 12 below;

 

·      The scale of the proposed development will be consistent with the likely future scale and density in the locality given the compliance with the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and minor non-compliance with the maximum building height standards under the RLEP.

 

·      Appropriate floor to ceiling heights are provided for the commercial shop and residential units.

 

·      The bulk and scale of the building is consistent with the existing medium density development in the locality and will not result in any significant adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, overshadowing and view sharing. 

 

Overall, having regard to the above justification for the maximum storey height, the proposed development is considered to satisfy the control objectives of the DCP. 

 

Figure 12: Photomontage of the proposed and existing development.

 

Sub-section 2.4.3 - Setbacks

 

The DCP defines the following objectives in regard to setbacks:

 

·      To define the street edge and establish or maintain the desired spatial proportions of development on the street.

·      To ensure a development does not detrimentally affect the amenity of adjoining residential development.

·      To ensure any building fronting a rear lane has a scale and mass secondary to the main dwelling on the site, and is appropriate for the width of the lane.

 

The minimum side setback requirement where a side boundary of the site forms the edge of a business zone or, adjoins land in a non-business zone (and not separated by a road) is to provide a minimum of 3m setback from the side boundary for a minimum of 60% of the allotment depth. For constrained sites, Council may consider a variation to the standard if the proposal can demonstrate that a reduced setback will suitably address privacy and solar access to the neighbouring properties.

 

The subject site has a frontage width of 20.065m and parts of the building are setback less than 3m from the side boundaries.  The proposed side setback area as follows:

 

Southern side – Varies from 2.24m to 2.88m on the ground, first and second floor levels.  On the third floor level the building has a varied setback of 2.625m to 5.15m.  Majority of the building on this level is setback 4.8m from the southern side boundary.

 

Northern side – varies from 1.6m to 2.255m on the ground, first, second and third floor levels.

 

The proposed side setback is consistent with the objectives of the DCP in that:

 

·      The proposed side setback will allow for adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and view sharing as discussed in the relevant section of this report.

·      The setbacks will be generally consistent with the built form along the street frontage, will maintain a human scale to the footpath and will not result in detrimental impacts on the visual quality and amenity of the public domain. 

·      The proposed terrace areas on the third floor level are orientated away from neighbouring private open spaces and windows.  Screen planning and privacy screens are proposed which will provide additional screening. This in conjunction with the proposed setbacks provides an adequate physical separation between buildings and will maintain reasonable levels of privacy to adjoining properties. 

·      The setbacks to the building will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing, privacy or visual amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties. The built form is consistent with the scale, bulk and height of the adjoining mixed use and residential flat buildings within the locality.

 

The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with the established setbacks in the street and integrate acceptably with the frontage having regard to the amenity of the neigbhouring properties and therefore, will satisfy the objectives of the control.

 

Sub-clause 5.1 - Solar access and overshadowing

The solar access impacts to the subject site and surrounding development are as follows:

 

Solar access for surrounding development:

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrates a comparison shadow diagrams between the proposed non-compliant building height and side setbacks and for a compliant building height of 12m and compliant side setback of 3m.

 

At 8am the diagram in Figure 13 below demonstrates that both the proposed and complaint development will overshadow majority of the north facing windows with the exception of the ground, first and second floor bedroom windows to the far western end of the building only received direct solar access.  For the proposed development an additional bedroom window to the far western end of the building on the second floor level will also receive direct solar access.

 

Figure 13: June 8am Shadow

 

At 12 noon the shadow diagram in Figure 14 below demonstrates that a 12m high compliant building height will overshadow the ground and first floor levels and the entire windows on the second floor level will receive direct solar access.  However, the proposed development indicates the entire second floor level, the bedroom window to the far east of the building on the first floor level and 50% of windows on the first floor level to the kitchen and living areas receiving direct solar access.

Figure 14: June 12pm Shadow

 

At 4pm the shadow diagram in Figure 15 below demonstrates that a 12m high compliant building height will overshadow two thirds of the north facing windows on the ground, first and second floor level.  The living spaces to the units to the far eastern end of the building will receive direct solar access and part of the 2nd floor level living room windows to the unit at the far western end of the building will receive direct solar access.  However, the shadow diagram indicates 50% of the windows being overshadowed by the proposed development.  The units to the western end of the building on the ground and first floor level will be overshadowed by the proposed development.  Majority of the window openings on the second floor level will receive direct solar access with the exception of the bedroom which is located to the far western end of the building.

 

Figure 15: June 4pm Shadow

 

When comparing the two shadow diagrams in Figures 13 to 15 the impacts resulting from a compliant 12m building height will be greater than the proposed subject development.

 

The proposed solar access impacts to the surrounding development are considered acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·      The scale and built form will reflect the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape and in the immediate locality. 

·      The proposed building envelope will be generally similar with the setback and separation of adjoining buildings and will provide reasonable amenity between neighbouring properties. 

·      The additional overshadowing is a result of the site orientation rather than being of poor building design.

·      The top floor is well setback from the south boundary which improves the overshadowing created by a compliant building envelope.

·      The additional shadows caused by the non-compliant part of the building are minor and does not create any unreasonable impacts to the development to the south.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is zoned B2 Local Centre under RLEP 2012 and the proposed development is permissible with development consent. 

 

The proposal seeks a variation to the development standard contained within Clause 4.3A, sub-section (3)(c), of the Randwick LEP 2012 relating to height of building.  The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation of the Exceptions to height of buildings development standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.  The proposed development and variation from the development standard does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning and strict compliance to the numerical standard is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in this case.

 

Subject to conditions the development will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises (in terms of overshadowing, view sharing and privacy) or the character of the local centre.

 

The application has been assessed having regard for Section 79C (1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, together with the provisions of Randwick Local Environmental Plan and all relevant Council DCPs.  Following detailed assessment it is considered the proposal in its amended form is consistent with the relevant planning controls as addressed in the report and is supported.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Ardwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses Height of Building of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, relating to Clause 4.3(2), 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/308/2015 for demolition of the existing structure on site and construction of a 4 storey mixed use building comprising of a retail premises at ground floor level, 11 dwellings and two basement level car park for 30 vehicles, associated site and landscape works, at No. 120 Brook Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.     The ground floor components of the “SOHO” apartments must only be used for commercial purposes and not for a residential use.

 

b.     Clothes Dry facilities shall be provided to the rear of the courtyard areas of the “SOHO” apartments and rear common communal open space.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 120 Brook Street, Coogee

Included under separate cover

2.View

Plandev Peer Review Report - 120 Brook Street, Coogee

 

 

 

 


Plandev Peer Review Report - 120 Brook Street, Coogee

Attachment 2

 

 


 


 


 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                     12 July 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Miscellaneous Report No. M3/16

 

Subject:                  Report for variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 13 May - 30 June 2016

Folder No:               F2008/00122

Author:                    Kerry Kyriacou, Acting Director City Planning       

 

Introduction

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in November 2008 advising Councils to adopt additional procedures in relation to the administration of variations to development Standard. The additional measures are largely in response to the ICAC inquiry into Wollongong City Council. Those additional measures are:

 

1)     Establishment of a register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

2)     Requirement for all development applications where there has been a variation greater than 10% in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6 to be determined by full council (rather than the general manager or nominated staff member);

 

3)     Providing a report to Council on the development applications determined where there had been a variation in standards under SEPP1 and Clause 4.6;

 

4)     Making the register of development applications determined with variations in standards under SEPP 1 and Clause 4.6 available to the public on council’s website.

 

This report is in response to point 3) above. A table is attached to this report detailing all SEPP1s and Clause 4.6 exceptions approved in the period between 13 May, 2016 to 30 June, 2016 – eight (8) were approved during this period by Planning Committee Meeting, Ordinary council Meeting or under Delegation Authority.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

Direction 4b:     New and existing development is managed by a robust framework.

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The NSW Department of Planning (DOP) released a Planning Circular in 2008 advising of additional requirements Councils are required to adopt in relation to SEPP1 objections and Clause 4.6 exceptions. This report is in response to one of those.

 

 

Recommendation

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.View

Clause 4.6 between 13 May to 30 June, 2016

 

 

 

 


Clause 4.6 between 13 May to 30 June, 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

 

CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 13 MAY TO 30 JUNE 2016

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apart-ment/ Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/-Town

Post-code

Category of develop-ment

Environ-mental plan-ning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Develop-ment standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concurring authority

Date DA determined
dd/mm/yyyy

Approved by

DA/455/2015

A

100389 (BEING LOTS 6-10 IN SP 77817)

 

159

Arden Street,

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.9:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.938:1. or 4%.

NSW Dept of Planning

13-May-16

Delegated Authority

DA/108/2016

46

975345

 

2

Helena Street

RAND-WICK

2031

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 5.4  - secondary dwelling > 60m2

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Secondary dwelling increase of 4m2 (6.5%)

NSW Dept of Planning

24-May-16

Delegated Authority

DA/62/2016

10

1137197

 

134

Marine Parade

MAROU-BRA

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.9:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.904:1. or 0.5%.

NSW Dept of Planning

25-May-16

Delegated Authority

DA/851/2015

3

9452

 

7

Seaside Parade

SOUTH COOGEE

2034

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.6:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR  existing: 0.67:1, proposed increase to 0.69:1, which is 15% above FSR Controls.

NSW Dept of Planning

24-May-16

OCM

DA/801/2015

2

216340

 

54-56

Marine Parade

MAROU-BRA

2035

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 12m

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

Building height is in excess of 10%

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-16

PCM

DA/561/2015

1

322434

 

2

Pearce Street

SOUTH COOGEE

2034

 2: Residential - Single new dwelling

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.65:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.675:1 or 4% 

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-16

PCM

DA/839/2015

1

959305

 

163

Arden Street

COOGEE

2034

 4: Residential - New multi unit < 20 dwellings

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residential

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.9:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.95:1  or 5.7% 

NSW Dept of Planning

14-Jun-16

PCM

DA/245/2016

112

16138

 

608-610

Bunnerong Road,

MATRAVILLE

2036

 1: Residential - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residential

Clauses 4.1(3) - minimum allotment sizes = 400m2

Consistent with the urban character of the locality and predominant subdivision pattern. Site contains existing pair of semi-detached dwellings

Lot A Lot size 178.5m2  or
44.6% (178.5m2)  shortfall,
 and Lot 2 Lot Size 224m2
or 44% (176m2)  shortfall

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Jun-16

OCM