RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 9 August 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 1300 722 542

Fax: 02 9319 1510

 council@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                          9 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Tuesday, 9 August 2016 at 6:00pm

 

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

 

Quorum:                             Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 12 July 2016

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D60/16     31 Lenthall Street, Kensington (DA/344/2016)......................................... 1

D61/16     30 Middle Street, Kingford (DA/11/2016).................................................. 7

D62/16     202 Oberon Street, Coogee (DA/287/2015/A)......................................... 17

D63/16     42-42A Pauling Avenue, Coogee - DA/372/2016..................................... 27

D64/16     77 and 79 Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/137/2016)......................... 43

D65/16     37 Park Street, Clovelly (DA/819/2014/A)............................................... 57

Miscellaneous Report (record of voting NOT required)

M4/16       Report for Variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 July to 28 July, 2016....................................................................................................... 65   

 

Closed Session (record of voting required)

M5/16       Draft Voluntary Planning Agreement for Newmarket Green Development - 150-174 Barker St & 181 Botany St & 1-7,18-21 Jane St & 8-20, 28-42 Young St, Randwick (DA/88/2016)

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

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil.

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                          9 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D60/16

 

Subject:                    31 Lenthall Street, Kensington (DA/344/2016)

Folder No:                DA/344/2016

Author:                     Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                  Ground level alterations and additions to the existing dwelling plus mezzanine storage area, alterations to garage including bathroom addition, swimming pool and part covered deck to rear with associated works (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                        West Ward

Applicant:                Mr B J Rollo

Owner:                     Mr B J Rollo & Ms S I Robertson

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=0856d25f-5090-4f39-a630-bb0bf09a7e03&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for assessment as a Randwick City Councillor resides at the adjoining property.

Proposal

 

The proposed development involves alterations and additions to the Federation style cottage with the following features of the proposed works;

 

·     Demolition of the existing rear single storey wings and outbuildings;

·     Construction of a new two storey, modern addition to the rear which includes a new kitchen and living area on the ground floor and mezzanine storage area at the first floor;

·     New carport structure along the western side of the site adjacent to the existing garage;

·     New rear deck and associated swimming pool;

·     Internal alterations and reconfiguration of spaces to cater for new works;

·     Fill in the small front porch to become an ensuite, new butler’s pantry, and walk in cool room;

·     Rendering and painting the existing building, new front and side fencing;

 

After a meeting with the owners and Architect on 14 July 2016, amended plans were submitted to Council on 21 July 2016 and included the following modifications to the design;

 

·     The proposed fence along the western side at the front of the property has been removed;

·     The new window and wall details at the front to the ensuite have been redesigned to have the window and brickwork recessed behind the existing opening to the porch to reflect this new element and retain the visual appearance of the original larger opening;

·     The roofline of the extension has been modified to become a hipped roof at the front which is more recessive feature and provides greater visual separation between the principal and original roof form;

·     The existing face brickwork to the home will be retained;

·     The length of the rear, two storey awning structure has been reduced and cut back along the eastern side and the feature will be constructed of lighter materials in an attempt to reduce its height, dominance and scale;

·     The bin store has been relocated from the southern side to the northern side of the carport.

 

These amendments were referred to Council’s Heritage Officer who is now more comfortable with the proposed scheme. Her comments and advice are included as part of the Compliance report.

 

Site

 

The subject Site is situated at the western end of Lenthall Street close to where the South Dowling Street overpass is located.

 

The subject Site is a regular shaped allotment with a frontage of 15.24m to Lenthall Street, depth of 45.56m and total site area of 690.3sqm. The legal description of the property is Lot 61 in DP5759.

 

Existing on site is a single storey brick building representative of the Federation period. At the rear of the property there are some non-original additions in the form of a concrete pergola adjacent to the garage and a small laundry structure adjoining the kitchen.

 

The original building and garage are in fairly good condition and maintain a strong contributory presence in the West Heritage Conservation Area (HCA).

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the RDCP 2013.

 

One submission was received on 15 July 2016 from the immediately adjoining owner at No.33 Lenthall Street. Whilst the submission did not object to the proposed development, it requested that the proposal through its design, maintain the ability for No. 33 Lenthall Street, to retain an off street car parking space along the front of the site.

 

This issue is addressed in more detail in the Compliance report and a condition on the consent is included if approval is granted.

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage Conservation

The original design of proposed rear extension was considered to be quite a large and bulky addition despite its compliance with Council’s height and floor space controls.

 

Council’s Heritage Officer raised concerns regarding a number of issues relating to the design, namely the bulk and scale of the addition, the proposed rendering and painting of the original dwelling house and the finishes and treatment of the front porch.

 

After a meeting with the owner and the architect, amended plans were submitted which address the concerns raised. The front section of the addition has been cut back and a hipped roof element introduced which reduces the visual bulk of the addition and creates a recessive element which will sit behind the principle roof form. The awning structure at the rear has also been cut back along the north-eastern side reducing its length and size. The painting and rendering of the existing home has been deleted from the plans and the existing face brick work will be retained. Other minor changes have also been incorporated which will improve the general functionality of the home.

 

The changes are considered to be a satisfactory planning and design response to the issues raised and the proposed design is now more in keeping with the heritage objectives and controls within the RDCP in respect to the West Kensington Conservation Area. The scheme is now considered to be more respectful design outcome for the area and aims to retain the integrity of the existing home and its immediately adjoining properties.

 

The proposal complies with the principle planning controls relating to height, floor space and landscaped area and satisfies the objectives of the zone.

 

Setbacks and siting

 

Section 2.4 (Part B2 of the RDCP) relates to the proposed setback and siting provisions for developments in conservation areas. The proposed development does not alter the front setback of the building however, the new walk-in coolroom adjoining the kitchen is only setback approximately 400mm from the side boundary. Although it fails to comply with the 900mm minimum requirement, the coolroom is a small, ancillary structure with no windows along the side elevation and given that the existing sunroom of the dwelling is located directly on the boundary no adverse amenity impacts are perceived in terms of overshadowing or overlooking.

 

The siting of the proposed new works are in keeping with the objectives of Section 2.4 of the RDCP which seek to “conserve and maintain established setbacks to the street and to ensure that the integrity of the heritage item and its setting, or the heritage conservation area is retained by the careful siting of new buildings and alterations and additions to existing buildings”.

 

Boundary fencing and driveway gate location

After meeting with the applicant and owner of the property, they explained that the proposed new driveway gate and associated boundary fence are setback from the front boundary to assist the adjoining neighbor at No.33 Lenthall Street in maintaining an off street car parking space at the front of his site.

 

Currently there is no common boundary fence between the properties and as such both properties have access to driveways along the side of their properties and are able to park along the side of their respective homes. With the introduction of a boundary fence No.33 Lenthall Street will retain a driveway but it will only measure approximately 2m in width restricting parking and accessibility. This neighbour, by way of a submission to Council acknowledged that a boundary fence will provide security for the subject site but requested if a new gate and fence were constructed could they be setback from the front boundary to allow for No.33 Lenthall Street to retain a hard stand car space at the front of the site.

 

The original plans and amended plans intend to retain a space at the front of No.33 Lenthall Street by setting the gate and fence back from the front boundary. However, a standard car space length is 5.5m and the fence and gate is setback some 5.2m. It is proposed, by way of a condition, that the gate and fence be setback a minimum of 5.5m to ensure that a standard car parking space can be accommodated at the front of No.33 Lenthall Street. The relocation of the gate and fence by some 300mm to achieve this is considered minor and a fair and reasonable planning outcome, which should not adversely affect the design of the proposal in any significant way.

 

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 2012 and RDCP 2013 as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended.

 

The amended plans have addressed some of the initial heritage and design concerns relating to the height, scale and bulk of the proposed rear addition. The proposed changes have sufficiently modified the design to be more sensitive to and in keeping with the character and nature of development within the HCA. The changes seek to respect and maintain the integrity of the existing dwelling and its surrounds.

 

It is for these reasons that approval is recommended.

 

 


 

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.344/2016 for internal alterations and a new two storey addition at the rear of the property including a new carport, rear deck and associated swimming pool, at No. 31 Lenthall Street, Kensington subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Location of side gate and boundary fence.

2.        The proposed new side boundary fence (between the subject site and No.33 Lenthall Street) and the associated driveway gate shall be setback a minimum of 5.5m from the front boundary to ensure that a hard stand car space can still be accommodated at the front of No.33 Lenthall Street.

 

Heritage Conditions

3.        The external walls of the proposed cool room be painted to match the adjacent brickwork.  Amended drawings shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

4.        Any required repointing of original face brickwork to the front elevation and common brickwork to the side elevations should be carried out by a skilled and experienced tradesperson, to ensure the use of technically sound and appropriate techniques.

 

5.        Further clarification of the details of the retention of the existing garage gable is required.  Amended/additional drawings shall be to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

6.        Details of the design, height, materials and structure of the front pedestrian and vehicular gates are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.  Gates are to be compatible with the style of the dwelling and the streetscape character.

 

Flooding

53.      A "restriction on the use of land” and “positive covenant" (under section 88E of the Conveyancing Act 1919) shall be placed on the title of the subject property to ensure that the area underneath the new ground floor slab shall not be enclosed or used for the storage of goods. This is to ensure flood storage is maintained on the subject property. Such restriction and positive covenant shall not be released, varied or modified without the consent of the Council.

 

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

 

 


 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 31 Lenthall Street, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                          9 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D61/16

 

Subject:                    30 Middle Street, Kingford (DA/11/2016)

Folder No:                DA/11/2016

Author:                     Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of all structures and construction of a three storey boarding house containing 19 self-contained rooms, ground floor common room, parking for cars and bicycles, landscaping and associated site works

Ward:                        West Ward

Applicant:                Mr. B. Larsson

Owner:                     Larsson Holdings Pty. Ltd. and Galisi Pty. Ltd.

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 determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Nash and Stavrinos.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of all structures and construction of a three storey boarding house with 19 self-contained rooms and car parking fronting Willis Lane.

 

The proposed design scheme includes the following:

 

Ground floor level:

·     Excavation and associated site works   

·     2 boarding rooms (2 x 1 lodger room and 1 x 1 lodger room) and onsite managers room.

·     Communal living room and communal open space located on the northern side of the subject premises.

·     Vehicular parking with access via Willis Lane including 4 car parking spaces, 4 motor cycle spaces and 9 bicycle spaces.

·     On site detention located up to the eastern boundary

·     Waste, plant and services room adjoining off-street parking

 

First floor level:

·     8 boarding rooms (8 x 1 lodger rooms) 

·     Drying court area on the north-western corner of the site

·     Planter box along the eastern boundary

 

Second floor level:

·     8 boarding rooms (8 x 1 lodger rooms)

 

It should be noted that the proposal involves a breach of both the FSR and height standards under RLEP 2012. As the Applicant has not submitted clause 4.6 exceptions to vary the standards, Council is unable to grant consent to the application.

 

Site

The subject site is known as 30 Middle Street, Kingsford and formally described as Corner Lot 1 DP981557. The subject allotment is rectangular in shape and located on the intersection of Middle Street and Willis Lane. The site dimensions include a frontage width of 10.06 metres and a depth of 40.23 metres with a site area of 404.7sqm. The typography of the site is characterised by a significant slope from east to west by 1.88 metres with a fall of approximately 18.6% across the front boundary.

 

Neighbouring to the south and west is Middle Street and Willis Lane, respectively. To the east is an existing three storey residential flat building and to the north is a two storey dwelling house. The immediate locality comprises of a mixture of detached dwelling houses and residential flat buildings varying between single and three storeys in scale.

 

 

Image 1: Subject Site

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Address Unknown

Issue

Comment

The boarding house will result in an increase in rubbish generation within the surrounding street network.

Note. The proposal includes an accessible and suitably sized bin storage areas located at the ground floor level of the boarding house. 

 

The boarding house should be restricted to the University of New South Wales site.

In accordance with the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, boarding houses are a permissible form of development within an R3: Medium Density Residential Zoning. 

 

Council should be responsible for recovering lost shopping trolleys that are littered within the surrounding streets.

Council is not responsible for recovering misplaced shopping trolleys.

 

Key Issues

 

·     State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing 2009) 

 

Parking

The on-site parking requirements in accordance with the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 requires 0.2 parking spaces be provided for each boarding room if the development is located within an ‘accessible’ area and not more than 1 parking space is provided for each person employed in connection with the development who is a resident on site (i.e. an onsite manager). The proposal includes 18 boarding rooms with as on site manager’s residence identified as boarding room no. 2. Subsequently, the parking requirement to accommodate the boarding house development is 4.6 spaces (rounds up to 5 spaces). The proposed development accommodates for 4 parking spaces which results in a shortfall of one parking space. Council’s development engineering officer has reviewed the development application and notes that the site is located within an area that is experiencing a high demand for on-street parking due to the sites proximity to the University of New South Wales. In considering the shortage of on-street parking, development engineering is reluctant to support an increase to a parking deficiency in a high demand area and sets an undesirable precedent for future development and creates a cumulative affect that may impact on the future amenity and availability of on-street parking. The shortfall in the number of off-street parking spaces is inconsistent with the minimum requirements of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and does not provide an appropriate level of off-street vehicle parking.

 

Character Test

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

 

Compatibility of Built Form:

In accordance with Clause 30A: Character of Local Area, Council is required to consider whether the development is deemed to be compatible with the character of the local area. Therefore, consideration should be given on the relevant building envelope provisions including floor space ratios, building height, setbacks and landscaping which are all indicators on prescribing the orderly form of development as well as achieving a certain desired future character within a specific locality.

 

The new boarding house development exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio of 0.75:1 and bonus floor space ratio of 0.5:1 as prescribed by the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 with a total floor space ratio of 1.32:1. The proposal will result in a breach to the floor space ratio by 6% (28sqm) and the non-compliance does not positively contribute to the compatibility of the local area. The additional FSR will result to an increase in visible building bulk a development that extends more than 31 metres in length. The nil setback from the side boundary from Willis Lane, the non-compliance to the buildings external wall height control and floor space ratio all contributes to an elongated building block which is excessive in visual bulk and scale. The length of the western façade and its three storey scale results in a greater building depth than its immediate eastern neighbour and the lack of articulation or modulation to the external wall façade all contribute to a development that exhibits poor urban design qualities and reflects an overdevelopment of the site. The visual prominence of the corner site will also exacerbate the size and scale of the development visible from the existing streetscape and will result in a development that is out of character with the local site context.

 

The proposed landscaping and distribution of soft landscaping throughout the site is also inconsistent with the adjoining buildings and predominant character of the local area. The proposal does not provide any soft landscaping elements immediately adjacent to the side boundaries and therefore does not provide a contiguous area of deep soil zones to the adjoining properties, in particular to the eastern neighbour. The eastern neighbour comprises of a two tier terrace with the lower tier located on the ground level (existing) with soft landscaping provided up to the side boundary and the upper tier setback 2.6 metres from the side boundary. The lack of deep soil along the side boundary will compromise the visual amenity of the neighbouring dwelling from the upper and lower tier private open space and the proposed planter is unlikely to contribute to any substantial growth given the nominal soil depth and its location on top of the basement level. Further, it should be noted that the objectives for side setbacks of permissible forms of development, that would otherwise characterise the local area, prescribes that new development must retain or create open space and deep soil planting. The proposal is inconsistent with this requirement and is incompatible with the desired future character of the local area. 

 

For the reasons above, the proposal does not satisfy Clause 30A of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and is recommended for refusal.

 

·     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

R3: Medium Density Residential

The subject site is zoned R3: Medium Density Residential under the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposal is permissible in the zone with Council’s consent. The proposed development does not positively contribute to the desired future character of the area or protect the amenity of the residential area. The proposal is inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives and is recommended for refusal. 

 

·     To recognize 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.

 

As outlined within the Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings and Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios within the latter sections of this report the proposed development is inconsistent with the desired future character of the area. Refer to relevant objectives of these respective clauses for further details. 

 

·     To protect the amenity of residents

 

The first and second floor level west facing boarding rooms and balconies will result in direct overlooking into the private open space and habitable room windows of the neighbouring dwelling house to the west at no. 28 Middle Street. The separation between the balconies and the neighbouring private open space/habitable room windows is insufficient to maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy and whilst a fixed privacy screen has been included on the partial western edge of the balcony it does not mitigate the privacy concerns to the adjoining neighbour. The design scheme which includes eight west facing boarding rooms and does not sensitively consider the potential cross viewing impacts to the adjoining dwellings.

 

Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings

In accordance with the height of buildings map, the subject site has a maximum building height of 9.5 metres. The submitted statement of environmental effects identifies that the proposal will result in a building height of 9 metres which will comply with Clause 4.3(2) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. However, the height of building has been incorrectly calculated and the proposal will result in a height of building at 10.33 metres (8.7% variation) when applying the building height (or height of buildings) as defined within the RLEP2012.

 

The definition of building height (or height of buildings) means:

 

a)  in relation to the height of a building in metres – the vertical distance from ground level (existing) to the height point of the building or

b)  in relation to the RL of a building – the vertical distance from the Australian Height Datum to the highest point of the building,

 

including plant and lift overruns, but excluding communication devices, antennae, satellite dishes masts, flag poles, chimneys, flues and the like.

 

The applicants’ calculation of the height of building has been taken from the raised level of the rear garden which consists of a ground level (existing) of RL41.09. However, the garage and the dwelling house consist of a much lower level and whilst the structures are located on the boundary a true reflection of the ground level (existing) would be the existing curb on the Council verge fronting Willis Lane given the external walls of the existing dwelling extend to the curb level at RL39.62. Therefore, both materially and physically the building height as measured from the western façade would extend beyond 9.5 metres in building height and does not comply with the height of buildings development standard. A Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards has not been submitted as part of this application. The variation above the maximum permissible requirements is unacceptable and does not comply with the objectives of Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings is as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment: The size and scale of the development is not in keeping with the desired future character of the locality. The anticipated character is indicative of demonstrating compliance with the relevant building envelope controls as prescribed within both the RLEP2012 and the RDCP2013 including floor space ratios, building height, external wall height and landscaping. The proposed boarding houses non-compliant building height, external wall height, floor space ratio, nil western side setback and excessive building depth will exacerbate the visual bulk and scale impacts visible from the streetscape setting. The building will appear out of scale to one that would ordinarily comply with Council’s controls and the continuous external walling along the western façade visible from key viewing vistas along Middle Street given its corner positioning will contribute to an unreasonable level of massing to the local street context. The lack of articulation and modulation to the external wall and the long building depth does not result in a positive design outcome in terms of either scale or proportions.

 

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

 

Assessment: The development is not located in close proximity to a heritage conservation area or 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: As demonstrated in subclause a) the proposal will result in an acceptable degree of visual bulk that arises due to a number of non-compliances with Council’s controls. The building bulk is excessive and does not contribute positively to the local street character.

 

Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio

In accordance with the floor space ratio map, the subject site has a maximum floor space ratio of 0.75:1. The SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provisions allow for a bonus FSR of 0.5:1 for the purposes of a boarding house, if the development is on land within a zone in which residential flat buildings are permitted and the land does not contain a heritage item that is identified in an environmental planning instrument. The proposal does not contain a heritage item and a residential flat building is a permissible form of development within its zoning. Subsequently, development for the purpose of a boarding house allows for a maximum floor space ratio of 1.25:1.

 

The submitted statement of environmental effects and proposed plans indicate that the development will result in a compliant floor space ratio of 1.23:1. However, Council calculations indicate a floor space ratio of 1.32:1 and gross floor area of 533.86sqm which exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio. Council requested that the applicant submit a floor space calculation which was received on the 20 April 2016. The floor space calculation demonstrates that the proposal excludes the gross floor area of the corridors between the boarding rooms at the first and second floor levels. The applicants interpretation of gross floor area is incorrect given the definition excludes ‘any areas of vertical circulation’ from floor space calculations and areas of horizontal circulation are inclusive of the total gross floor area. These areas contribute to the subject sites overall floor space ratio. A Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards has not been submitted as part of this application. The variation above the maximum permissible requirements is unacceptable and does not comply with the objectives of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios is as follows:

 

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

 

Assessment: The floor space will contribute to additional visual bulk and scale impacts visible from the existing the streetscape. The development results in an elongated building block which is more than 31 metres in length and extends beyond the building depth of the residential flat development to the east at no. 32-34 Middle Street. Whilst, the building depth is a consequence of the narrowness of the allotment, this is a typical site constraint and does not reflect a carefully considered and well planned site strategy. The non-compliance to the floor space ratio, building height, excessive length of the building, nil setback to Willis Lane, and significant external wall height on the western façade all translates to a development that is excessive in size and scale with respect to the neighbouring buildings within the existing streetscape.

 

In addition to this, the additional floor space ratio also reflects a poor contribution of soft landscaping that has been provided throughout the site. The proposal lacks any substantial deep soil areas within the front setback and no soft landscaping on either side of the building and between the side setbacks. It should be noted that a compliant floor space ratio would improve the amount of soft landscaping to the site and would achieve a greater balance between the building structures and the open spaces on site.

 

The breach to the maximum floor space ratio requirements is unsupportable and has been recommended for refusal.  

 

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

 

Assessment: The proposal consists of a significant amount of unrelieved and exposed wall plane along the western façade of the boarding house development. The boarding house including the balcony elements are all set up to/close to the property boundary and reads as a continuous wall length across the entirety of the building depth. The overall scheme does not adopt any articulation or modulation to the built form that would provide a sense of visual relief to the built form and the minimal setback and exceedance to the wall height result in an imposing structure within the streetscape.

 

With regards to the environmental and energy needs of the building, Council’s design review panel have raised concerns that in considering the significant number of west facing single orientated rooms there will be difficulties in regulating comfortable room temperatures. Whilst the applicant has incorporated a plenum design with louvres installed above the door entrances this relies on firstly, borrowing circulation from the eastern corridor at the first and second floor levels and secondly, the glass louvres to be open at all times. This is not considered to be a desirable planning outcome in ensuring reasonable levels of amenity to the lodgers of the building.

It should also be noted that the current scheme also provides a number of single orientated south-facing boarding at the ground, first and second floor levels of the proposed boarding house. The six south-facing boarding rooms constitute almost one-third of all boarding rooms which will not receive any direct solar access. The lack of direct solar access increases the reliance of artificial lighting and heating during daylight hours and does not incorporate passive environmental sustainable design. The proposed development does not appropriately respond with the environmental and energy needs of the building.  

 

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

 

Assessment: The development is not located in close proximity to a heritage conservation area or heritage item.

 

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

 

Assessment: As demonstrated in subclause a) and b) the proposal will result in an acceptable degree of visual bulk that arises due to a number of non-compliances with Council’s controls. The building bulk is excessive and does not contribute positively to the local street character.

 

·     Randwick Development Control Plan 2012 (Part C4: Boarding Houses)

 

Part C4: Boarding Houses

 

Clause 2.1: Boarding Rooms

The Council controls as prescribed in Clause 2.1: Boarding Rooms requires that boarding rooms must be orientated to receive the maximum amount of sunlight. The requirements in providing a reasonable level of amenity is seconded within the objectives for boarding houses which specifies that boarding houses must achieve a high standards of amenity for boarding house residents and surrounding neighbours through effective design and management controls.

 

The single orientated south-facing boarding rooms at the ground, first and second floor levels does not provide any direct solar access into the boarding rooms or an acceptable level of amenity. The inappropriate design, orientation and sitting of the development will result in approximately one third of the boarding rooms (6 units) receiving no direct solar access and does not create attractive or livable spaces to the occupants of the proposed development. As a guide, the SEPP 65 requirements for solar access and overshadowing, an applicable assessment criteria on other forms of permissible medium density residential development, requires that a maximum of 15% of apartments receive no direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm at mid-winter. With almost two-thirds of the development receiving no direct solar access the development does not comply in providing a reasonable level of amenity to the occupants of the building. 

 

Notwithstanding the above, the south-facing ground floor boarding room no. 3 is located substantially below the ground level (existing) and the footpath level along Middle Street. The boarding room is located 1 metre below the footpath level and the new retaining wall and front boundary fencing will restrict the amount of ambient daylight into the south-facing ground floor room window. In considering the significant number of south-facing single aspect boarding rooms the proposal does not appropriately satisfy the objectives and controls of the Clause 2.1 of the RDCP2013.

 

Clause 2.6: Visual and Acoustic Amenity and Privacy

Clause 2.6: Visual and Acoustic Amenity and Privacy require balconies and windows to bedrooms must minimise overlooking, privacy and acoustic impacts on adjoining properties. The first and second floor level west facing balconies will contribute to direct overlooking into the private open space and the habitable room windows of the immediate western neighbour at no. 28 Middle Street. The nil side setback from the western boundary will reduce the building separation between the two buildings and the sloping nature of the site from east to west will result in downward views directly into the neighbouring private open space and the habitable room windows. Whilst the proposal includes fixed privacy screens over half the area of the west facing balconies, it should be noted that transient overlooking into these spaces is still available into the habitable room windows. In considering the number of west facing boarding rooms and the extent of direct overlooking into both the habitable room and the private open space areas, the development does not result in a reasonable level of visual privacy and is recommended for refusal.    

 

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 new boarding house development will result in a breach to both the height of buildings and floor space ratio of Clause 4.3 and Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and does not warrant Council support of the development application. The non-compliance to the height of building and floor space ratio as well as extended building depth, excessive external wall height, nil setback from the western boundary, the lack of appropriate landscaping and deep soil within the site and along the side boundaries all contributes to a development that is incompatible with the desired future character of the area. The extent non-compliances reflects an overdevelopment of the site and one that is largely inconsistent with the built form character as required by Clause 30A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing 2009).

 

The application is recommended for refusal. 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/11/2016 for the demolition of all existing structures on site and construction of a three storey boarding house containing 19 self-contained rooms, ground floor common room, parking for cars and bicycles, landscaping and associated works at No. 30 Middle Street, Kingsford, for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposal does not satisfy Clause 29(2)(e): Parking of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that the boarding house development will result in a non-compliance to the off-street parking provisions.

 

2.        The proposal does not satisfy Clause 30A: Character of Local Area of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 in that the boarding house is incompatible with the character of the local area.

 

3.        The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone in that it does not recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape or positively contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

4.        The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 1.25:1 specified in Clause 29(c)(i) of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, is inconsistent with the objectives of floor space ratios and a Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard has not been submitted as part of the development application.

 

5.        The proposal exceeds the maximum height of building of 9.5 metres specified in Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, is inconsistent with the objectives for height of buildings and a Clause 4.6: variation to the development standard has not been submitted as part of the development application.  

 

6.        The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Boarding Rooms set-out in Clause 2.1 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C4.

 

7.        The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for Visual and Acoustic Amenity and Privacy set-out in Clause 2.6 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C4.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 30 Middle Street, KINGSFORD 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                          9 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D62/16

 

Subject:                    202 Oberon Street, Coogee (DA/287/2015/A)

Folder No:                DA/287/2015/A

Author:                     Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by including an additional storey containing an additional 2 bedroom dwelling, an additional car space and motorcycle space in basement.

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Pinnacle Plus

Owner:                     Huss Chalich

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=81bea928-97e9-4f62-9df2-dd6bee2609c4&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The subject application has been referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Stavrinos and D’Souza.

Proposal

 

The subject section 96 application involves the following:

 

·     Upper level addition comprising an additional living room to apartment no. 5

·     Increase size of basement level to include additional parking space and alterations to storage space.

 

Site

 

The site is presently occupied by an existing single storey dwelling house located on the intersection of Brook and Oberon Street. The subject site comprises of a mixture of detached dwellings and residential flat buildings that vary in size and scale.

 

The topography of the site consists of a fall from front to the rear of the subject site (north to south) by approximately 2.31 metres and a cross fall from east to west by approximately 1.14 metres. The subject site has an allotment length of 36 metres, a frontage width of 13.87 metres and a total site area of 504.1sqm.

 

Section 96 Amendment

 

Substantially the same development:

Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that a consent authority may, on application being made by the applicant or any other person entitled to act on a consent granted by the consent authority and subject to and in accordance with the regulations, modify the consent if:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Council is required to determine whether the new third floor level will constitute “substantially the same as the development which was originally granted for which consent was originally granted”. The “substantially the same” test has been the subject of case law and is relatively settled.

 

The “substantially the same” test requires Council to undertake a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the consent before the proposed modification and after the modification. Moto Projects (No. 2) Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [1999] NSWLEC 280 describes the following:

 

The requisite factual finding obviously requires a comparison between the development, as currently approved, and the development as proposed to be modified. The result of the comparison must be a finding that the modified development is “essentially or materially” the same as the (currently) approved development.

 

The comparative task does not merely involve a comparison of the physical features or components of the development as current approved and modified where that comparative exercise is undertaken in some type of sterile vacuum. Rather, the comparison involves an appreciation, qualitative and quantitative, of the developments being compared in their proper contexts (including the circumstances in which the development consent was granted).     

 

A qualitative and quantitative assessment of the differences between the original approval and the subject section 96 modifications reveals that the proposal will not satisfy the “substantially the same development” test. The proposed development is unacceptable in complying with the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) and the amendments are not deemed to be similar to that of the approved development. The quantitative nature of the proposed development is unacceptable for the following reasons:

 

The new third floor level will result in a significant departure to the floor space provisions as prescribed within the RLEP2012. In accordance with Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios and the respective floor space ratio map, the maximum permissible floor space for the subject premises is 0.9:1. The new section 96 modifications will result in an additional gross floor area of 20.68sqm, a total floor area of 524.78sqm and an FSR of 1.04:1. The departure will result in a 14% variation from the maximum FSR requirements and is considered to be a major variation from the development standards.

 

Notwithstanding this, the additional floor will also breach the maximum height of buildings provisions as prescribed within the RLEP2012. Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings and the respective height of buildings map prescribes a maximum building height of 12 metres. The non-compliances to both the floor space ratio and the height of buildings control do not reflect a development that is consistent with its respective objectives of the RLEP2012, specifically one that reflects the desired future character of the area. A development that is fully compliant with both the floor space ratio and height of buildings provisions would be compatible with the predominant built form character of buildings that are two to three storeys in scale. The applicants justification that the subject site is adjacent to two four storey residential flat buildings (204 and 206-208 Oberon Street) on the opposite side of Brook Street is unfounded given the building currently operate under existing use rights and were constructed prior to Council’s local planning policies. It should be noted that the Council’s broader planning policies zone the urban block to the east as R2: Low Density Residential with much reduced density provisions in terms of both floor space and building height requirements. Further, the two buildings are not a reflection of the predominant the built form character within the wider streetscape setting.

 

The variation from Council’s development standards is not supported. The reason for this is that the non-compliance to the floor space ratio and height of buildings undermines the integrity of the LEP, given that the numerical standards contained therein are the result of considerable community consultation and detailed analysis of the existing and emerging development patterns in the Randwick LGA. Considerable weight should be given to the development standard for height and the associated built form controls contained in the RLEP2012 which envisages a particular height and density outcome, rather than allowing ad hoc increases in the density and scale of development on a project by project basis. Furthermore, the subject section 96 modification is not consistent with Council’s original position on the approved design scheme that any new development should fully comply with the maximum floor space ratio development standard advising that, ‘the floor area in excess of that allowed under the RLEP (0.9) is not supported and the bulk and scale of the building should be reduced to comply with the standard’.

 

The new upper floor level will also exceed the external wall height controls as per the RDCP2013. The controls prescribe a maximum external wall height of 10.5 metres for any new development where the height of buildings is a maximum of 12 metres. The development in its present form complies with the external wall height controls and the modification will result in a substantial departure by 3.195 metres and a 21% deviation from Council’s controls. The applicants justification to the departure to the external wall height control is that an additional setback is provided to the western neighbour which will minimise the visual and amenity impacts. However, the applicant’s justification does not address the visual dominance of the building within the existing streetscape in particular the visual catchment on the intersection of Brook and Oberon Street or its visual prominence being located on the high point of the neighbouring buildings.

 

The proposal is unacceptable in considering the quantitative nature of the Section 96 modifications and the numerical differences does not have regard to the rigorous community consultation process that was undertaken when devising Council’s long term strategic planning envelope controls contained within the RLEP2012.

 

The second part of the test requires a qualitative assessment and consideration of the non-numerical factors of the section 96 modification. A qualitative comparison between the approved and the modified development relies on the compatibility of the building within the local site context and the associated amenity impacts to neighbouring dwellings within the immediate locality.

 

The proposed development will contribute to the visual bulk and scale of the development and its location on the intersection of Oberon and Brook Street is visually prominent from the existing streetscape. The predominant character of the immediate locality comprises mostly of two to three storey buildings and the proposed upper floor addition will result in a four storey built form which will largely remain out of character with the buildings within the streetscape. The neighbouring buildings to the east, which consist of a four storey built form, do not reflect the typical character within the street and is a historical development currently operating under existing use rights. In fact, applying a comparative building height to the eastern neighbour is an inappropriate design outcome given that it dwarfs the immediately adjoining neighbours to the west and south of the building creating a monolithic structure. The subject sites location on the street corner of Oberon and Brook Street also contributes to the buildings’ visual prominence and the nominal setbacks from the street corner is inadequate in relieving the size and scale of the development.

 

It is also worthwhile noting that the subject site is located on the high point of Oberon Street and Brook Street with the site falling away quite significantly towards the north, south, east and west of the subject site. Subsequently, any additional storeys which result in non-compliant building height and floor area will be highly visible and contextually remain out of scale to the neighbouring dwellings to the west, in particular given its elevated nature to the neighbouring dwellings within the immediate streetscape. The concentration of the building bulk on the uphill side of the development is not appropriately modelled or stepped in response to the land gradient nor does it follow the natural topography of the site.

 

In considering the above, the apparent bulk and scale of the development is excessive and the additional storey will compromise the appearance of the building within the streetscape. The development will create significant visual bulk to the western neighbour and does not reflect an appropriate scale of desired future development in terms of height and floor space that would otherwise be achieved through a fully compliant proposal. A compliant building envelope as originally approved would demonstrate greater compatibility with the appearance of the buildings within the streetscape.

 

Consequently, in terms of a qualitative analysis the relatively acceptable level of amenity to the neighbouring dwellings does not outweigh the significance of the development and the excessive visual bulk and scale that the development presents within the existing streetscape. The physical and material change involving an additional storey are not ‘substantially the same development’ in considering the context of the neighbouring buildings and will result in a development that largely constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

4/199 Oberon Street, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The additional storey will block views of existing trees.

Views of trees in this instance are not considered to be highly valued or significant views in accordance with the planning principles for view loss within Tenacity v. Warringah Council. Subsequently, these views have little retention value. 

The proposal will give rise to additional overshadowing impacts.

The design and sitting of the new upper floor addition located on the northern side of the building will not create any significant shadowing impacts to the neighbouring premises that would not already been cast from the approved development.

The proposal will impact pedestrian safety given the subject sites location at the intersection between Oberon and Brook Street.

The section 96 modifications involve a new upper floor addition to the residential flat building. It is not expected that the provisions of the additional car space will compromise pedestrian safety than the approved development.

200 Oberon Street, Coogee ,

Issue

Comment

The proposal will contribute to additional visual bulk and scale of the development.

Noted. Refer to Section 4.1: Substantially the Same Development and Section 5.1 Environmental Planning Instruments for further details.

The proposal will give rise to privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings.

The section 96 modifications will not give rise to any significant overlooking impacts. The new deck on the northern side of the building consists of louvre screens on the western edge and the extent of the overlooking will largely be oblique. To the east, the deck and the window openings are significantly separated by Brook Street and will not result in any direct privacy impacts.

 

Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The proposal is inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012. The following clauses of LEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

R3: Medium Density Residential Zone

The relevant objective of the R3: Medium Density Residential zoning is as follows:

 

·      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:

In considering the above zoning objective, it should be noted the importance that this provision has and its relationship with other relevant objectives including Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings and Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio within the RLEP2012. The prescription of the zoning objective as well as the objectives for Height of Buildings and Floor Space Ratios all prescribe the importance in ensuring the size and scale of the development is compatible with the desired future character of the area/locality. The ‘desired future character of the area’ is largely dictated by demonstrating overall compliance with the relevant building envelope controls including the floor space ratios and building height which outlines the anticipated building density and visual bulk and scale of the development that is envisaged as part of Council’s development standards. The proposed development as detailed below represents a significant non-compliance to the floor space ratio controls with an exceedance of more than 14% above the maximum permissible floor space ratio requirements and 6% of the building height requirements. The numerical non-compliance and the significant variation from the maximum permissible requirements will result in a development that is significantly bulkier than building envelopes which would otherwise comply with the development standards within the RLEP2012 and one that would be deemed to be the ‘desired future character of the area’.

 

Furthermore, the applicant’s comparisons between the existing buildings within the immediate streetscape are unacceptable. The two eastern neighbouring allotments at nos. 204 and 206-208 Oberon Street currently operate under existing use rights (located within an R2: Low Density Residential Zone) and the scale of the north-western neighbour pre-dates Council’s current planning policies. The predominant character of the buildings within the street consists of a scale between two to three storeys in height and which reflects development that are generally compliant with the relevant Council controls of building height and floor space ratios. Subsequently it is clear that the desired future character of the area is one that should be in keeping with the existing streetscape character and consist of a building envelope that complies with the Council development standards. Variation from the Council’s controls that exceed the development standards by more than 10% can have significant implications on the future streetscape character. 

 

The prescriptive nature and similar language applied throughout the relevant objectives of the RLEP2012 cannot be ignored. A scale that is commiserate to both the existing streetscape and one that is envisaged by the Council’s controls should have preference in envisaging the ‘desired future character of the area’.

 

Clause 4.3: Building Height

The relevant objectives for height of buildings are as follows:

 

·     To ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

·     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.

 

In addition to this;

 

Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios

The relevant objectives for floor space ratios are as follows:

 

·     To ensure that the size and scale of development is compatible with the desired future character of the locality.

·     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 applicant submitted further amended plans without prior consultation with Council (received by Council on the 31 May 2016) which includes a reduction in the building footprint at the third floor level, deletion of an additional unit with a split level addition to unit no. 5 comprising of upper level living/dining room space and additional bedroom. These plans form the basis of this assessment. 

 

The modifications will result in a development that will still continue to exceed the floor space ratio development standards and non-compliance with the overall height of buildings as prescribed within the RLEP2012.

 

 

Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings

Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios

Proposed

12.7 metres

524.78sqm (1.04:1) 

Maximum permissible

12 metres

0.9:1 FSR

Exceeding LEP control

6% (70mm)

14% (20.68sqm)

 

Assessment:

The non-compliance to the height of buildings and floor space provisions are unacceptable. As advised above, the proposal is not in keeping with the desired future character of the area. The additional building bulk resulting from the non-compliant floor area and building height will give rise to adverse visual bulk and scale impacts to the existing streetscape. The predominant character of the immediate locality comprises mostly of two to three storey buildings and the new addition to a four storey built form will largely be out of context with the buildings within the streetscape. The proposed modifications to the building area at the third floor level seek to redistribute the additional gross floor area centrally on top of the approved built form. Whilst the design outcome results in an increased front setback at 3.9 metres and side setback from the eastern and western boundaries at 3.6 metres and 5.115 metres, respectively, from the originally submitted Section 96 application, it is not an acceptable design response and the additional upper level will detract from the appearance of the building within the streetscape.

 

The central configuration of the new addition does not demonstrate good quality urban design and does not exhibit any characteristics of well-designed buildings which are consistent within existing streetscape character. The existing developments within the immediate vicinity of Oberon Street comprise of a more conventional built form with evenly distributed building blocks between the ground and upper level storeys of the building which resonates with the street character. The asymmetrical nature of the new upper floor level is incompatible with the prevailing characteristics of development within its surrounding context. Notwithstanding this, the building design attempts to minimize the visual bulk and scale of the upper floor level by providing generous side setbacks to the eastern and western neighbouring buildings. However, such is the extent of the setbacks that the new upper level does not integrate with the overall built form and visually appears incongruous to the lower floor levels of the approved two storey residential flat development. In fact the upper level visually appears as an ad-hoc addition and in an attempt to circumvent the non-compliant floor area it compromises the appearance of the building and fails to exhibit elements of good urban design.

 

The current scheme does not attempt to strategically distribute the additional building bulk in a manner which would otherwise minimise its visual appearance and the central positioning results in a disproportionate development that is highly visible from key viewing vistas along the intersection of Oberon and Brook Street. The original approval which included a three storey scale provided a greater transition to the building blocks to the west in terms of building height and established a more compatible building height plane to the neighbouring dwellings all of which can be exhibited as part of a compliant building envelope. This is considered to be the preferred design outcome and the new addition plainly contributes to an overdevelopment of the subject premises.  

 

The proposed modification does not represent a well-balanced or proportionate built form visible from the street edge and does not lead to a development that harmoniously contributes to the streetscape character.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

·     Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (C2: Medium Density Residential)

 

Clause 4.4: External Wall Height 

The RDCP2013 prescribes that should the site be subject to a 12 metre building height limit under the LEP, a maximum external wall height of 10.5 metres applies. The proposal does not comply with Council’s controls in that the proposed external wall at 12.7 metres will result in a significant variation from Council’s controls by 21%. The non-compliance to the external wall will contribute to an excessive visual massing of the development visible from both the streetscape setting and the immediately adjacent neighbouring dwellings. The applicant has attempted to mitigate the impacts of the upper floor level by providing an increased front and side setback from the neighbouring dwellings above the minimum requirements. However, the additional bulk centrally configures the new upper floor level which will continue to read as its own separate addition when viewed from the existing streetscape. As advised above, the additional setbacks does not integrate to the overall built form and visually appears incongruous to the lower floor levels of the approved two storey residential flat development. The upper level visually appears as an ad-hoc addition and in an attempt to circumvent the non-compliant floor area it compromises the appearance of the building and fails to exhibit elements of good urban design.

 

The building height, the expanse of face brick finish to the western external wall and the neighbouring dwelling being located on the downhill side of the allotment all contributes to the monolithic nature of the building. The additional side setbacks from the eastern and western building edges create a disproportionate built form from the lower residential levels and asymmetrical from the existing streetscape. The perceivable bulk and scale of the building does not establish an appropriate design outcome and is not commiserate to the neighbouring buildings. The proposed modifications will create a poor design outcome and an intrusive element to the streetscape character. The section 96 modifications is not supported in its current form.

 

Insufficient Information

 

The amended plans received by Council on the 31 May 2016 does not include either a southern or western elevation included as part of the amended plans. The application is insufficient in information to allow for a proper assessment and subsequently does not warrant Council’s support.

 

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 approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012, the relevant council policies including the RDCP 2013 as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended. The new upper level consisting of a two bedroom apartment is not considered to be substantially the same development when considering the quantitative and qualitative merits of the proposal. The original development consent (DA/284/2015) fully complied with Council’s controls and the subject section 96 modifications will result in substantial departures to Council’s development standards including floor space ratio and height of buildings. The ad-hoc addition to the residential flat building is not in keeping with the desired future character of the area which is largely dictated by the community preferences and complying with the numerical requirements of the RLEP2012.  

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/287/2015/A at No. 202 Oberon Street, Coogee for modification of the approved development by including an additional storey containing an additional 2 bedroom dwelling, an additional car space and motorcycle space in basement for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal is inconsistent with Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) given the modifications are not substantially the same development.

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

3.     The proposal exceeds the maximum height of buildings of 12m and does not satisfy the objectives specified in Clause 4.3 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

4.     The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 0.9:1 and does not satisfy the objectives specified in Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

5.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls for external wall heights & ceiling height set-out in Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 Part C2.

 

6.     The proposal is excessive in size and scale and the substantial variations to the floor space ratio and height of buildings contributes to an overdevelopment of the site.

 

7.     The application is insufficient in information to allow for a proper assessment of the development application.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                          9 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D63/16

 

Subject:              42-42A Pauling Avenue, Coogee - DA/372/2016

Folder No:                DA/372/2016

Author:                     Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and new upper level additions to existing dual occupancy development

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Mr. Jacek Pluta

Owner:                     Mr. J. T. Pluta & Mrs. J. Lukaszewicz-Pluta

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=ac72178e-7d0f-4519-81c8-807dfb868d92&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposed building height exceeds the standard under Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 by more than 10%. 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves alterations and new upper level additions to existing dual occupancy development. The scope of works includes the following:

 

First floor level:

·     Increase size of family room, new study and stairs to Occupancy A

·     Relocate window openings to bedroom no. 2 with a north-facing aspect to Occupancy B

 

Second floor level:

·     New upper level addition consisting of an additional two bedrooms, bathroom and south-west facing balcony.

 

Site

 

The subject site is legally described as Lot 9, DP 16658 and is also known as no. 42-42A Pauling Avenue, Coogee. The subject site is a regular shaped allotment with a site area of approximately 501sqm, frontage width of 10.445 metres, north-western (side) boundary of 38.48 metres and a south-eastern boundary of 44.21 metres. 

 

The subject site is characterised by a significant slope from the rear to the front of the subject site with a fall of approximately 17.18 metres. The significant fall constitutes a slope of approximately 38% of the length of the south-eastern side boundary. The existing development comprises of an existing dual occupancy development. Neighbouring to the north-west, south-east and the rear are existing free standing dwelling houses with Pauling Avenue directly south-west of the subject site. The immediate locality is chracaterised by free standing dwellings within a predominately low density residential zoning. 

 

Image 1: Subject site.

 

 


 

Key Issues

 

·     Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.5:1

249.83sqm (0.5:1)

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5 metres

13.4 metres

No*

Lot Size (Minimum)

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

*See exceptions to development standards below.

 

Clause 4.6 Exceptions to Development Standards – Height of Buildings (Cl4.3(2) of RLEP 2012

 

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 

13.4 metres 

Maximum height of building 

9.5 metres

Height exceeding LEP control

3.9 metres (41%)

 

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 Height of Buildings development standard are set out in clause 4.3 (1) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

THE STANDARD

Clause 4.3 of Randwick LEP 2012 sets a maximum height of building limit of 9.5m measured vertically from ground level (existing) to the highest point of a building.

 

HOW THE PROPOSAL DEPARTS FROM THE STANDARD

The proposal building has a height of 12.42m at the highest point of the proposed amended roof form and 11.49m at the amended roofs western end (gutter). The proposed roof exceeds 9.5m height limit by 2.92 and 1.99m respectively.

 

OBJECTIVE OF THE STANDARD

The objectives of the building height control are stated in clause 4.3 to be:

(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.

 

GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION

Because the proposed development does not comply with the development standard for building height, an exception is lodged under State Environmental Planning Policy No.1 – Development Standards (SEPP 1) on the basis that the standard is unreasonable and unnecessary in particular the circumstances. The grounds for the exception are made with reference to the objectives of the standard, which the proposed development will achieve notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard, and with analysis of the subject site’s steep topography.

Topography and background

The subject site slopes very steeply upwards away from Pauling Avenue which runs in a deep valley. In the original build in 2003 the site has undergone extensive excavation to accommodate garages at street level. The ground floor levels are also partially located below the natural ground line characteristic to the subject site and the topography of Pauling Avenue in general. At the point where the building height is measured, the excavation varies from 2.55m to 4.03m in depth. Clearly, those parts of the existing building which are located underground do not contribute to the bulk of the building and it would not be unreasonable, for the purpose of impact assessment, to consider the part of the building which is visible above the site’s natural land flow levels. In consideration of this, existing unexcavated ground levels have been overlaid on the amended drawings and indicate as follows:

 

Height measured from ground level (existing) – underside excavated slab

Heights measured from natural ground line

Heights excavated below natural ground line

12.49m

8.39m

4.03m

11.49m

8.94m

2.55m

 

This demonstrates that the proposed development would fit comfortably within the 9.5m height limit when considering that part of building which is visible above natural ground. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the development standard as follows:

 

Views

The proposed second storey level is positioned on the site in a location that will not affect any views from surrounding properties.

 

Compatibility

The proposed development will be compatible with the form, materials and character of existing dwelling and recent development nearby. Both sides of the valley are developed with similar scale developments which are spread over many levels as they follow the steep topography of the land. The proposed second floor addition is set far back from the street boundary (12.78m) and as such composes well into the context and natural landscape.

 

Privacy

There is only one window proposed in the second storey addition facing south and it is a high-silled bathroom window. The windows proposed facing north are also high-silled or address a transient area of the stairway and therefore the proposal will not affect the privacy of adjoining properties.

 

Sunlight access

The proposal will not significantly increase winter shading to any habitable room windows or private open spaces of the property adjoining to the south. The design has been carefully considered to minimise heights and provide setbacks well beyond the minimum required. The building wall height varies from 5.8m – 8.39m, measured above natural ground. At grid line A it exceeds the DCP control by only 390mm and complies with the control at and beyond gridline B, which in the context of the sloping may be considered unavoidable and appropriate, especially as the part of the building where the wall height is exceeded casts shadows over the top of the roof of adjoining property at No.44 at midday and onto the road at 9am. Overshadowing is further minimised by the fact that the second storey is set back 2.98m from the south boundary. A dashed line indicating how the proposed development fits within an otherwise permissible building envelope is shown on the elevation drawings.

 

 

 

Public domain

There are no public views from the street that would be affected by the proposed development.

 

AIMS OF THE PLAN

In the circumstances of this case, compliance with the development standard would not be consistent with the aims of the LEP because it would not allow flexibility in the application of the control. Compliance would tend to hinder the objects of the Act relating to the following aims:

2(c) to support efficient use of land…,

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

 

IS COMPLIANCE UNREASONABLE OR UNNECESSARY

The arguments set out in the grounds for objection show that strict compliance with the standard is unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the planning control, and it would therefore be unreasonable to require compliance.

 

MATTERS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR STATE OR REGIONAL PLANNING

The implications of a single residential property not complying with a dimensional development standard of the Woollahra LEP are local in scope and raise no matters of significance for State or regional planning.

 

PUBLIC BENEFIT OF MAINTAINING THE CONTROLS

The circumstances of the case should be balanced against the usual presumption of public benefit in maintaining a planning control. The proposal will improve amenity for the occupants without adverse impacts on neighbours or the public domain.

 

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 Height of Buildings 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 desired future character of the locality can be reflected by demonstrating overall compliance with the relevant building envelope controls that are prescribed within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The alterations and additions of the dual occupancy are generally compliant with the relevant building envelope controls including setbacks, landscaping and floor space ratios. The significant variation from the height of buildings and external wall height control is attributed to the total height of building being measured to the underside of the basement garage slab/footing as the ground level (existing), defined by the RLEP2012. The substantial non-compliance is acceptable given the basement garage and a portion of the ground floor bathroom is currently below the outer surface of the external walls of the building and in considering the topography of the site. The building height as measured from the outer surface of the external walls of the building will be less than 9.5 metres and the development will generally remain compatible with the building height plane of the neighbouring premises.   

 

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

 

Assessment:

The proposed development is not in close proximity to a heritage conservation area or heritage items.

 

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 variation to the building height will not contribute to any adverse amenity impacts for the following reasons:

 

·     The new upper floor level will not give rise to adverse visual bulk and scale impacts visible from either the neighbouring dwellings or the immediate streetscape. The variation from the height of building control is acceptable given the additional height is measured from the underside of the slab at the basement garage in which the height is located below the outer surface of the external walls of the building. The height of the building that protrudes above the natural ground level will remain less than 9.5 metres and will generally remain compatible with the size and scale of the neighbouring dwellings.  

 

·     The south-facing window opening is to a bathroom and the north-facing windows are either set more than 1.6 metres above the finished floor level or provide significant building separation to the adjoining window openings or the private open space areas of the immediate northern neighbour. The new balcony at the second floor level does not permit for any direct downward views and will largely be screened by the subject sites skillion roof form at the first floor levels. The new upper floor additions will maintain a reasonable level of visual privacy to the adjoining neighbours.    

 

·     The Council’s controls for solar access and overshadowing within the RDCP2013 requires that a portion of the north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of three hours of direct sunlight between 8am – 4pm on 21 June. The proposal will comply with Council’s controls in that the new upper floor level is likely to cast additional shadowing to the ground and first floor north-facing bedroom windows of the southern neighbour at no. 44 Pauling Avenue only and will not impact any north-facing living room window openings. Therefore the proposal will comply with the controls for solar access and overshadowing as per the RDCP2013. 

 

·     The proposal will not contribute to any view loss impacts from either from the neighbouring dwellings, street and public open space areas.

 

The minor breach to the building height requirement does not give rise to any significant adverse amenity impacts and satisfies sub-clause 2(c) of Clause 4.3(1) for Height of Buildings.

 

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

 

        The relevant Objectives of the R2 zone include:

 

·      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.

 

Assessment:

The building envelope provisions including floor space ratio, building height, setbacks, site coverage and soft landscaping are all indicators on prescribing the orderly form of development as well as achieving a certain desired future character within a specific locality. The proposed development will comply with the suite of building envelope controls that are outlined within both the RLEP2012 and RDCP2012 and reflects a development that is consistent with the dwellings within the streetscape character. The departure to the building height arises strictly through the measuring the height of the building from the basement level which is construed as the ground level (existing). However, the height that extends above the outer surface of the external walls of the building will remain less than 9.5 metres in building height and be consistent with the perceivable building height plane of the neighbouring buildings along Pauling Avenue. Furthermore, the overall compliance with Section 5: Amenity of the RDCP2012 will exhibit a reasonable degree of solar access and overshadowing, visual privacy and view sharing to the neighbouring buildings and generally demonstrate compliance with the objectives of the R2 zoning.

 

3.       Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment:

None applicable.

 

4.       The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment:

The additional building height does not form a detracting feature that compromises the streetscape character and the development will generally remain compatible with the built form presentation within the existing streetscape. As prescribed above, the variation to the height of buildings development standards will not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings or within the streetscape and demonstrate a compliant development in terms of solar access, visual privacy and views.

 

5.       There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

The following assessment demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the height of buildings variation:

 

·     The non-compliance to the height of building control is acceptable given the additional building height is measured from the underside of the slab at the basement garage level, as defined by the RLEP2012, and sits approximately between 2.6m to 5m below the outer surface of the external walls. The height of the building that extends above the existing basement level is less than 9.5 metres. Subsequently, the dual occupancy development will generally remain compatible with the building height plane of the neighbouring buildings within the street character and the anticipated future character of the area that is dictated by the building height provisions.

 

·     The new second floor addition is substantially setback from the northern and southern (side boundaries) at 2.98 metres and 3.9 metres, respectively. The additional setbacks from the top most level will appropriately articulate the built form and the increased building separation will minimise the perceivable visual privacy and overshadowing impacts from the immediate adjoining neighbours.

 

·     The proposal will remain fully compliant with the building envelope controls as prescribed within the RLEP2012 and RDCP2013 including floor space ratio, setbacks, site coverage and soft landscaping requirements.

 

·     The upper floor level does not give rise to any adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings including solar access and overshadowing, visual and acoustic privacy, view loss or bulk and scale impacts.

 

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 allowable height of buildings 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 Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

44 Pauling Avenue, Coogee

Issue

Comment

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible height of buildings requirement as prescribed by the RLEP2012.

Noted. Refer to the Key Issues section of this report for further details.

The proposal exceeds the maximum permissible external wall height control.

Noted. Refer to Key Issues section of this report for further details.

A Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards should be submitted as part of the application.

Noted. The applicant has submitted a Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards to justify the contravention of the development standard.

The overshadowing diagrams are inaccurate.

Council has carried out an independent overshadowing analysis to the affected neighbouring dwellings. The applicant has provided additional survey details with spot levels along the southern boundary of the subject site. 

The overshadowing diagrams do not include any elevational shadow diagrams.

The proposal will result in significant overshadowing impacts to the living room windows and the rear private open space.

Refer to Key Issues section of this report for further details.

The proposal will result in significant privacy impacts to the objectors premises.

Refer to Key Issues section of this report for further details.

An existing terrace located on the second floor level will allow for direct overlooking into the private open space of the objectors premises.

The terrace is an existing structure and does not form part of the subject application. Notwithstanding this, it should be noted that a bedroom is considered to be a low-use room and the access between the bedroom and the terrace would not significantly intensify to a degree in which additional privacy measures would be required.

 

·     Randwick Development Control Plan 2013

 

Clause 3.2: Building Height

The Council control requires a maximum external wall height of 8 metres for sloping sites and the subject sites substantial fall from east to west is appropriately in this instance. The proposal consists of an external wall height of 8.6 metres and results in a 600mm variation from the maximum wall height requirements.

 

The applicant has submitted amended plans that seek to reduce the floor to ceiling of the first floor family room by 200mm, reconfigure the roof pitch to delete the clerestory window opening and replace with a skylight window opening. The proposed variation will reduce the external wall height by an additional 200mm and result in an external wall height of 8.4 metres. The non-compliant portion of the external wall height to the eastern end of the second floor level includes a floor to ceiling height at 2.4 metres to a portion of bedroom no. 2, below the minimum Council requirements for floor to ceiling of 2.7 metres and aims to reduce the minor variation to the external wall height control as much as reasonably possible. The departure is acceptable in considering the merits of the proposal and overall compliance with the objectives for building height. The form and massing of the built form is appropriate given the second floor level consists of a substantial setback from the northern and southern building edge and appropriately articulates the building mass along the side elevations. The height and scale of the development will also remain appropriate given the height of the building that extends beyond the natural ground level is less than 9.5 metres and will generally remain compatible with height of buildings along Pauling Avenue. Lastly, the non-compliant building height does not contribute to any adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings including solar access and overshadowing, visual and acoustic privacy, view loss or bulk and scale impacts. The proposal is acceptable in complying with the objectives for building height as per the RDCP2013.  

 

Clause 5.1: Solar Access and Overshadowing

 

        Proposed shadowing to window openings of the southern neighbour

An objector (44 Pauling Avenue, Coogee) has provided a written submission with concerns regarding the potential solar access and overshadowing impacts that arise from the new upper floor level to the east facing ground and first floor window openings and the rear private open space. The Council controls within the RDCP2013 prescribes that a portion of north-facing living area windows of neighbouring dwellings must receive a minimum of three hours of direct sunlight between 8am – 4pm, 21 June.

 

However, the Council controls also envisage the difficulties in demonstrating compliance with the above requirements when considering the particulars of the site context. Therefore allowances are provided to vary the minimum number of hours of direct solar access received having regard to the following:

 

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

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

·     Topography of the subject and adjoining allotments.

·     Location and level of the windows in question.

·     Shadows cast by existing buildings on the neighbouring allotments.

 

The new second floor addition will result in the east facing window openings receiving less than required three hours of direct solar access as prescribed by Council’s controls. The additional shadowing is expected to fall on the south-eastern corner of the ground and first floor level east facing living room window openings which receive less than three hours of solar access as existing. In considering the merits of the proposed development the loss of direct solar access is largely a consequence of the inherent site constraints as an east/west orientated allotment. The configuration of the allotments with an east/west aspect is not conducive to favourable solar access conditions and contributes to the casting of shadows to the immediate southern neighbour and in this instance, the objectors premises at no. 44 Pauling Avenue. The buildings compliance with the building envelope controls including floor space ratios, site coverage requirements, overall building height (above basement levels) and the substantial side setback above the minimum requirements all reflect a fully compliant building envelope that is anticipated as per the Council’s controls. Subsequently, the non-compliant shadowing is not a direct result of a poorly configured building envelope.   

 

The locations of the window openings as east facing have a much lower retention value than those with a direct northern aspect. East facing window openings receive indirect solar access during the morning periods only and during the afternoon receive no solar access. Council’s controls favour the protection of north-facing window openings as a matter of preference for these reasons. In considering the above, the required level of solar access is not fully achievable in these particular circumstances relating to the subdivision pattern, the allotment orientation, the typography of the site and its east facing window position. The extent of the overshadowing impacts is unavoidable and is a factor of the constraints of the site. The variation from the minimum number of hours of direct solar access is acceptable in this instance.

 

IMG_7497

Current solar access achieved to the ground floor window openings. Solar access shown on the south-eastern corner. Image taken on the 6 July 2016 at 11.12am. 

 

IMG_7509

Current solar access achieved to the ground floor window openings. Solar access shown on the south-eastern corner. Image taken on the 6 July 2016 at 11.19am. 

 

IMG_7510

No current solar access to the first floor window openings. Solar access shown on the south-eastern corner. Image taken on the 6 July 2016, 11.20am. 

 

IMG_7503

Excavated portion of the objectors premises including underground swimming pool and existing building beyond at no. 42 Pauling Avenue. Image taken on 6 July 2016, 11.14am.

 

 

 

Proposed shadowing to the private open space

Similar to the above, the Council control also requires a minimum of three hours of direct solar access to be provided to the private open space between the hours of 8am – 4pm, 21 June. The area that is covered by sunlight must be capable of supporting passive recreational activities. The new upper level addition is expected to overshadow the private open space of no. 44 Pauling Avenue to its entirety which is inclusive of an inground swimming pool area and subsequently does not comply with Council’s controls for overshadowing.

 

The extent of the additional overshadowing will fall primarily on a portion of the southern boundary of the neighbour at no. 44 Pauling Avenue. The solar access and overshadowing impacts to the private open space is affected given it is located directly south of the new upper level addition. As mentioned above, the east/west building configuration along Pauling Avenue will result in continual shadowing which will fall on the immediate southern neighbour. The topography of the site also contributes to the overshadowing impacts. Pauling Avenue is characterised by a steeply sloping site which falls approximately 17.18 metres from the east to west of the allotment. The building mass of the new addition is located further east than the rear building alignment of the southern neighbour and therefore is located on a higher level than the southern neighbour. Further, the shadowing impact to the private open space is exacerbated given the ground level (finished) of the rear private open space is also much lower than the outer surface of the external walls of the subject site and works that have been carried out to accommodate the in ground swimming pool and associated pool coping to the southern affected neighbour.

 

Finally, the area that is affected by the proposed development is not capable of supporting passive recreational activities as per Council’s controls. The additional shadowing impact is limited to a small area along the southern boundary and adjacent the inground swimming pool of no. 44 Pauling Avenue. The affected area is a small area between the pool coping and the southern boundary fencing and its diminutive area cannot accommodate the recreational activities for the residents. In considering the above, the variation from the minimum number of hours of direct solar access is reasonable in this instance. 

 

Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy

The objectives for visual privacy prescribe:

 

To ensure development miminise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain a reasonable level of privacy

 

The proposal is not expected to result in any adverse visual privacy impacts to the immediately adjoining dwellings. To the south, the new works include a single window opening to a bathroom and will not unreasonably compromise the visual privacy of the southern neighbour. To the north, the first floor window opening consists of a sill height greater than 1.6 metres above the finished floor level and the second floor bedroom windows is substantially setback more than 5 metres from the side boundary and any downward views will be screened by the first floor level roof form of the dwelling. The new second floor balcony adjoining bedroom no. 2 is also acceptable given it adjoins a low use room rather than a living area and opportunities for overlooking is oblique which is again obscured by the lower level roof structures. The new upper level addition is acceptable in providing a reasonable level of visual privacy to the northern and southern neighbours.  

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The submitted Clause 4.6: Exceptions to the Development Standards is acceptable in that the development will remain consistent with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential, comply with the objectives of Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings and remains within the public interest. The proposal is acceptable in complying with Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended) and will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impacts to the neighbouring developments.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council supports the exceptions to development standards under Clause 4.6 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in respect to non-compliance with Clauses 4.3 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. 372/2016 for alterations and new upper level additions to existing dual occupancy development at No. 42-42A Pauling Avenue, Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report. 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 42-42A Pauling Avenue, COOGEE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                          9 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D64/16

 

Subject:              77 and 79 Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/137/2016)

Folder No:                DA/137/2016

Author:                     Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 77 Malabar Road at ground and lower ground floor levels plus new first floor addition, construction of hard stand car park space to front of dwelling with storage area below, new access stairs and planter in front yard, and new external access stairs to 79 Malabar Road

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mr M D Gardner

Owner:                     Ms Y Barausch, Mr M D Gardner, Mrs M N Gardner, and T & R Karaoglu

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as it involves a variation to the building height standard of greater than 10%.

 

Proposal

 

Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 77 Malabar Road at ground and lower ground floor levels plus new first floor addition, construction of hard stand car park space to front of dwelling with storage area below, new access stairs and planter in front yard, a new front fence and new external access stairs to 79 Malabar Road. External materials for the addition are proposed to include a combination of vertical cladding and rendered walls, and tiled roofs.

 

Site

 

The application relates to two adjoining sites located on the northern side of Malabar Road, close to its intersection with Arden Street. The sites and their adjoining neighbours are orientated in a north-south direction. The sites contain a pair of symmetrical semi-detached dwellings, which sit at a lower level than the street due to the substantial slope of the sites down from the street. A large Norfolk Island Pine tree is located within the rear of 77 Malabar Road. Each site generally contains substantial areas of landscaping within the front and rear.

 

The pair of semis is part of a row of four pairs of semis that contain similar design features and roof forms with front facing gable ends. The pair of semis on the adjoining sites to the west contains raised hardstand car spaces in the front of each site and the side of the semi closest to the subject site has had an upper-level addition (approved DA/138/2012).     

 

Figure 1. Photograph of the front of the subject and adjoining sites. The roof of the subject semi-detached dwellings can be seen behind vegetation (right of centre).

 

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 no submissions were received as a result of the notification process.

 

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 Request to Vary a Building Height Development Standard – RLEP 2012

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

 

The proposal contravenes the building height standard contained in clause 4.3 (2A) of RLEP 2012. The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the proposed variation summarised in the table below.

 

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal – Building

10.6m

Excess above RLEP Standard

11.6%

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

This development application seeks exception to the development standard for maximum wall and building height, as prescribed in the RLEP2012. 

 

The maximum wall height of a building, on a sloping block, is 8m and the maximum building height is 9.5m. The submitted design proposes a wall height of 8.76m (.76mm or 9.5% breach of standard) and building height of 10.475m (.975mm or 10.3% breach of standard).

 

In keeping with other additions in the street, the design proposes to turn the one, part two storey dwelling into a family home accommodating 3 bedrooms for a growing family over two, part three levels.

 

The exception to the development standard is sought in light of topographic restrictions that have limited the design opportunities of the site. A Norfolk tree, of significance to the local area, is located at the rear of the existing dwelling on the western boundary and no additions or alterations can be made within 2m of the tree making it extremely difficult to propose habitable rooms on the lower ground and ground floor.

 

As a result, the only opportunity to increase the accommodation of the existing dwelling is to add a second storey, which in turn increases the building height. 

 

The second topographic restriction is the fall of the land away from the street. The fall of the land from the street boundary to rear boundary is 5.75m. This gradient is typical for the northern sites in this section of Malabar Rd and is similar to the two adjoining sites. This topographical feature usually causes non-compliance with Councils DCP preferred solutions for walls and building heights, due to the land fall at the rear. 

 

The building height, as viewed from the street elevation, is only 6.45m. This is consistent with the built form to the east and other buildings in the vicinity. When viewed from the street frontage of Malabar Rd, the second floor addition presents an appearance of a two storey dwelling as the existing ground floor is substantially below Councils footpath level. The appearance of a two storey dwelling from the street is consistent with other additions along Malabar Rd, adhering to a consistent street character. 

The new addition is consistent with neighbouring semi directly west (75 Malabar Road, South Coogee) in both heights and bulk, however the building proposal as a whole is on a smaller scale when compared to the neighbouring property. The proposed addition is also consistent with the newer renovated properties to the west (63 & 61 Malabar road South Coogee), two properties that also exceeded the standard in the same areas as the land of all these properties in this area fall to the rear quite considerably.

 

Although the proposed wall height exceeds the development standard by .76m, less than 10% above the standard, the existing wall height on the front elevation remains unchanged, offering no visual impact from street view and does not add additional building bulk.

 

This submission has been amended to provide modulation between levels, creating an illusion of a reduction in wall heights. The existing masonry wall height will remain and the new timber framed lightweight construction will step in to reduce the visual impact of a large continuous wall. This mix of materials and articulation in the built form will assist in alleviating the mass of the building when viewed from the side elevation.

 

Council has acknowledged the main reason for the building height exceeding the maximum standard is due to the sites topography, that is the significant fall down away from the street. In recent years, council has approved the west-adjoining site No. 75, and neighbouring west site No. 63, non-compliance with

the both wall height and building height standards, hence it appears the proposed exceptions have merit, assessed against the regularity of other non-compliance proposals. 

 

The proposed development has been designed in accordance with council’s Development Control Plan 2013 and is consistent with the objectives of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

The development application will not affect the existing streetscape and consideration has been made to the proposed construction to bring in line with current buildings within the immediate vicinity.

 

Assessment comments:

The proposal will result in a design that is not a departure from the character of the surrounding area, including the adjoining site to the west, being No. 75 Malabar Road. Consent was granted in 2012 (ref: DA/183/2012) for an upper-level addition to the semi-detached dwelling on the adjoining site to the west. It has been constructed and has resulted in a built form which is comparable to that proposed on the subject site. In particular, the form and height of both additions are comparable relative to the original roof forms and heights of the respective dwellings, and their bulk and form at the rear at comparable (refer fig. 2 below).

 

Figure 2. Shapshot of the application plans showing the proposed rear (northern) elevation (purple). The existing upper-level addition and bulk at the rear of No. 75 Malabar Road can be seen on the right. The general ground level on No. 75 is lower than that of the subject site.   

 

It is agreed that the dwelling will have a two-storied appearance when viewed from the street.  Therefore, it is considered that the addition will be generally compatible with the existing and future scale and character of the area.

 

The proposed addition is to comply with the minimum setback requirements of the RCDCP 2013.  The submitted shadow diagrams also demonstrate that the proposed addition will comply with the RCDCP 2013’s solar access requirements for adjoining sites.

 

The proposed infringement to the height control will not facilitate additional overlooking into neighbouring sites. The proposed height infringement will not impede view corridors from any sites. Therefore, the proposal will not adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

In conclusion, the proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the development standard and compliance with the development standard in relation to the addition is therefore considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

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 height standard in the LEP objectives:

 

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 comments:

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

 

The proposed design is not a departure from the character of the surrounding area. When viewed from the street, the dwelling will appear to be a two-story dwelling of comparable scale to other dwellings along the street Therefore, it is considered that the addition will be generally compatible with the existing and future scale and character of the area.

 

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 comments:

N/A – the proposed development is not located close to a conservation area or 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 comments:

The proposed second floor addition is to setback to comply with the minimum requirements of the RCDCP 2013.  The supplied shadow diagrams also demonstrate that the proposed addition will comply with the RCDCP 2013’s solar access requirements for adjoining sites.

 

The proposed infringement to the height control will not facilitate additional overlooking into neighbouring sites given privacy screens are proposed to the upper-level side elevation windows. The proposed height infringement will not impede view corridors from any sites, including those to the coast or areas of significant natural value. Therefore, the proposal will not adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding properties.

 

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

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

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

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

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

•  To protect the amenity of residents.

•  To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment comments:

The proposal is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form will provide the housing needs of the community whilst preserving the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

 

3.        Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment comments:

N/A – no state or regional planning policies relate to the proposed building height.

 

4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

 

 

Assessment comments:

The proposal will result in a design that is not a departure from the character of the surrounding area. The dwelling will appear to be a two-story dwelling of comparable scale to other dwellings along the street when viewed from the street. Therefore, it is considered that the addition will be generally compatible with the existing and future scale and character of the area. The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the development standard and compliance with the development standard in relation to the addition is therefore considered to be unreasonable or unnecessary.

 

5.        There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

Assessment comments:

Yes. The proposed infringement to the height control will not facilitate additional overlooking into neighbouring sites. The proposed height infringement will not impede view corridors from any sites, including those to the coast or areas of significant natural value. Therefore, the proposal will not adversely impact on the amenity of surrounding properties. Further, it is considered that the addition will be generally compatible with the existing and future scale and character of the area.

 

6.        The Variation is within the Public Interest

 

Assessment comments:

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

 

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

 

Yes. The proposal will result in minimal environmental impacts on the amenity of adjoining residential sites as privacy will be preserved, bulking bulk will out over-dominate outdoor living areas and additional shadowing will be minimal. Therefore, the applicant’s written request and accompanying documentation is considered to have successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard.

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

Assessment Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Director- General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard 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 the regional environmental planning. The strict adherence to the numerical standard will not be necessary, in this case, to maintain the low density housing forms or the amenity of surrounding residential areas, and it is compatible with the dominant character of existing development within the surroundings.

 

Wall Height – Sub-Section 3.2

The proposed western wall of the addition will result in a wall height of 9.1m on a slopping site. This is non-compliant with the maximum wall height of 8m required by the RCDCP 2013.

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will not generate significant adverse impacts. The degree of non-compliance is largely due to the fall of the site towards the front and not because of any inappropriate design. This is generally evident in the proposed dwelling’s two storey character at the front of the site.

 

The dwelling and wall height will not be dissimilar in height and built form to other buildings within the surrounding area, including the dwelling on the adjoining site to the west (refer fig. 2 above). The addition will therefore not appear as a dominating element within the immediate context of the area.  The additional wall height area does not contribute to any significant amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties in terms of privacy, view loss or overshadowing. Further, the upper-level addition is well articulated with different side setbacks, and materials and a roof design that provides visual relief along the sides of the dwelling. These design elements will create visual interest to the wall and soften the appearance as viewed from the neighbouring dwellings and the street.

 

General Building Design – Sub-Section 4.1

The proposed western side elevation of the dwelling will be non-compliant with the 12m length requirement of the DCP 2013 as it will extend for up to 15.9m at lower ground and ground floor levels along the western side elevation.  

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will generate no significant adverse environmental impacts in terms of the residential amenity and the character of the area. The proposed side elevations will be appropriately sized relative to the long side boundaries of the site and will not over dominate the site and context. Side elevations will vary between ground-level and upper-level sections of the dwelling as the proposed upper-level is shorter than the ground levels. The character of the surrounding area is generally dominated by reasonably elongated semi-detached dwellings; the proposal will not be a departure from this established character.

 

Earthworks – Sub-Section 4.6

The proposal will be non-compliant with the excavation control of the RCDCP 2013 in relation to the excavations for the front storage/parking structure. In particular, excavations with a depth of up to 2.5m, 0mm from the eastern side boundary are proposed.

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will generate no significant adverse environmental impacts. In particular, the proposed ground level modifications will not significantly alter the general appearance of landforms on the site when viewed from the surrounding area. Standard conditions of consent are imposed that require adjoining land and buildings located upon adjoining land to be adequately supported at all times, and a dilapidation report be prepared if necessary.

 

Parking Facilities forward of the Front Façade – Sub-Section 6.2

The proposal involves the establishment of a single parking space and associated storage structure within the front yard of the site. The site slopes down from the street and therefore the dwelling is not elevated above the street as Sub-Section 6.2 of the RCDCP 2013 requires for the establishment of parking facilities forward of the front façade.

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will generate no significant adverse environmental impacts. In particular, similar parking structures are present in front of other dwellings (that sit below street level) along this side of Malabar Road. This includes the neighbouring sites immediately to the west (73+75 Malabar Road, refer fig. 3 below) and the double car park structure at the front of no. 63 Malabar Road. The subject dwelling sits so far below street level that only its roof form is generally visible to the causal observer on the street, and the proposed parking structure will not significantly obscure views from the street to either the existing roof form or the new proposed upper-level addition. Further, the proposed habitable room windows to the upper-level addition will enable causal surveillance of the street.    

 

The structure will not occupy the full width of the frontage and it will incorporate landscaped elements and landscaping within the front yard, which will visually soften and blend the structure into the streetscape. Low fencing and a parking surface at a similar grade to the footpath are proposed, which will result in clear and safer sightlines between pedestrians and vehicles using the parking space.

 

 

Figure 3. Photograph of the existing parking structures to the front of No.s 73+75 Malabar Road. The structures are comparable to what is proposed on the subject site.  

 

Setback of Parking Facilities – Sub-Section 6.3

The proposed parking structure is to be setback 0mm from the site’s eastern side boundary where Sub-Sections 6.3 and 3.3.2 of the RCDCP 2013 requires a setback of 900mm.

 

The proposed non-compliance is considered to not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RCDCP 2013 and will generate no significant adverse environmental impacts. In particular, the proposed setback is comparable to the existing pattern of development on the subject site, which contains a semi-detached dwelling attached at the same boundary. The wall height of the proposed parking structure will be a maximum of 2.6m at the boundary but will decrease to the north due to the proposed partial sub terrain nature of the storage area/parking structure and the slope of the site up to the road. The structure does not adjoin a private outdoor space of the adjoining site and users of a front yard would have a lower expectation of amenity than a private outdoor space. The structure is proposed to the south of the dwelling on the adjoining site and will not alter daylight admission to the dwelling as a result. 

 

The setback of the existing parking structures on No.s 73+75 Malabar Road are the same as that proposed on the subject site and therefore there is a similar pattern of development in the immediate context to that proposed.

 

Development Engineering Referrals Comments

Undergrounding of Power Lines to Site

At the ordinary Council meeting on the 27th May 2014 it was resolved that;

 

Should a mains power distribution pole be located on the same side of the street  and within 15m of the development site, the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site via an underground UGOH connection.

 

The subject is located within 15m of a power pole on the same side of the street hence the above clause is applicable. A suitable condition has been included in this report.

 

Landscape Comments

The inspection of 11 July 2016 revealed a 3-4m tall Robinia pseudoacacia ‘Frisia’ (Golden Robinia) on the public verge, beyond the western boundary, in front of no.75, of poor condition due to its lean to the north and heavy lopping away from the overhead wires, but will remain unaffected by the external civil works given the setback that is provided, with conditions not needed. 

 

Similarly, beyond the eastern site boundary, in front of no.79, there is a mature, 6m tall Metrosideros excelsa (Pohutakawa) of good health and fair condition, which is covered by the DCP, and despite its western aspect encroaching slightly into the subject site, will not be affected given the actual setback that will be provided to its trunk, with conditions not required.

 

All vegetation within the front setback was observed to be too small to be covered by the DCP, so can be removed where necessary in order to accommodate the proposed internal hardstand and associated works as shown, including the Hibiscus and deciduous species along the western boundary, along with the Port Wine close to the house entry.

 

In the rear yard, there are a stand of three large and mature trees, whose co-joined canopies occupy the full width of this site, as well as overhanging into neighbouirng private properties, so as a group, were observed to assist with amenity, screening, shade, as well as a habitat source for fauna close to the coastal zone.

 

They comprise from east to west, a 12m tall Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel), right on the eastern site boundary, of poor health and condition as its entire crown has completely died-back, and is in obvious decline, with a short life expectancy.

This species is also regarded as an environmental weed, and as the existing rear deck will also be replaced and extended much closer to its trunk, it can be removed on the grounds of safety, consistent with previous pre-DA advice.

 

The similarly sized Pinus pinea (Stone Pine) to its west, located centrally in the rear yard is in good health but only fair condition, as it has been suppressed by the other two, more dominant trees nearby, resulting in a distinct canopy bias to the northwest.

 

Excessive leaf-fall from this exotic species, along with the shading it creates, has prevented the establishment of grass cover directly off the rear of the dwelling, which affects the usability of the private open space.

 

Consistent with the PL advice, its retention will be not be sought as part of this application as any disturbance to the southern (tensile) side of its root plate arising from the works has the potential to threaten its stability and the future safety of person and property, with its removal to also reduce competition with the more desirable tree immediately to its west, as discussed below.

 

Along the western site boundary, there is a large and mature Araucaria heterophylla (Norfolk Island Pine) of 25m in height, of excellent health and condition, which is covered by the DCP, is a significant example of the species, as well as a landmark in the area, so Council requires that it be retained and incorporated as an existing site feature into this proposal.

 

While the submitted plans show that the offset between the tree and the northwest corner of the dwelling will be maintained at 2600mm, with the Ground & First floor eave to be offset a distance of 2 metres, the covered rear terrace/deck is shown as being setback only 1200mm to its east.

 

Consistent with what was described in the PL comments, in order to avoid this tree being able to be removed by the applicant, without consent, upon the completion of works, due to its location with a 2 metres radius (as allowed by Part B, Section B5, Exceptions, point iii, of Council’s DCP 2013 – ‘Preservation of trees or vegetation’); Council requires that all physical parts of the building be located wholly outside of a 2m radius.

 

On this basis, conditions specifically require that this DCP clause be complied with, so the rear deck/terrace will need to be amended.

 

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.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/137/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at 77 Malabar Road at ground and lower ground floor levels plus new first floor addition, construction of hard stand car park space to front of dwelling with storage area below, new access stairs and planter in front yard, and new external access stairs, at 77 and 79 Malabar Road, South Coogee , subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-Standard Conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   The slats of the frontage fencing are to be designed to be at least 30% open when viewed from the street.

 

b.   A privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the full extent of the western sides of each of the two rear decks.  The privacy screen must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 30% of the area of the screen.  Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

 

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

 

·         W3 in the ground floor living area

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 77 & 79 Malabar Road, SOUTH COOGEE

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                          9 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Development Application Report No. D65/16

 

Subject:              37 Park Street, Clovelly (DA/819/2014/A)

Folder No:                DA/819/2014/A

Author:                     Tuong-Vi Doan, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification of the approved development to reduce the size of the ground floor window opening and delete the BBQ and planter box to the ground floor terrace. Original consent: Demolition of existing structures and erection of a 2 storey dwelling house and pool

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Look Design Group

Owner:                     Mr Robert McInnes

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 consideration as the original application was determined by Council.

 

1.       Details of the Current Approval

 

Development consent was granted on 28 April 2015 for the demolition of existing structures and erection of a 2 storey dwelling house and pool.

 

2.       Details of the Proposed Modification

 

The subject application seeks to modify the approved development by reducing the size of the ground floor window opening and deleting the BBQ and planter box to the rear ground floor terrace.

 

Ground floor rear terrace:

·     Delete the 3 existing columns and replace with 1 column in the north eastern corner, including minor extension of the terrace to the north;

·     Delete wall and planter box and replace with clear balustrading, as per Condition 2(b) of the Current Approval.

 

Northern elevation:

·     Reduce the dining room window from 2.4m x 4m to 1m x 4m.

 

Note: It should be noted that the south-eastern column supporting the roof over the outdoor terrace is slightly larger than what was on the approved plans and not shown coloured on the Section 96 plans. A site visit on 15 July 2016 shows that the columns have already been constructed and do not reflect that of the approved plans but follow the Section 96 plans. However, it is considered that the works (i.e. the columns) will not be impeding any view corridors. The supporting columns for the rear terrace roof will not result in excessive building bulk and as such will not further contribute to any significant overshadowing as the structure maintains the openness of the rear terrace (see images below).

 

Extent of works

1.   Plan approved on 28/04/2015

2.   Section 96  modifications to the approved plans

3.   Works already completed

 

3.        Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Park Street between Park Lane to the north and Surfside Avenue to the South in Clovelly. The subject site is occupied by a dilapidated single dwelling.  The site has a frontage width of 9.145m, a side boundary depths of 35.795m and 35.9m and has an overall site area of 327.8m².  Neighbouring the property to the north is a residential flat building containing four apartments, to the south is a part two part three storey dwelling with parking garage off the rear lane (Campbell Lane). The surrounding area is low and medium density residential in character and consists predominantly of dwellings and some residential flat buildings.

 

Photographs of the site

1. Subject site

2. Location of the proposed modifications.

3. Objectors located on the other side of the site

4. Aerial view of the location of the proposed modifications.

 

4.       Submissions

 

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

 

35 Park Street

Issue

Comment

Privacy and overshadowing concerns regarding the balcony looking from the south elevation

The proposed modifications for this application are not altering the already approved balcony located on the south elevation. The modifications are considered to improve the amenity and privacy to No.35 Park Street, other neighbours and to the subject site.

 

Furthermore, these changes are made on the north eastern side of the subject site which means No.35 will be less affected as they are on the southern side.

 

 

 

33 Park Street

Issue

Comment

No reference to the southern elevation

The modified works only involve the proposed changes on the northern elevation, i.e. the dining room window and the removal of the BBQ wall and planter box to the rear ground floor terrace.

Lack of details in the plans of the proposed modification:

 

·     Showing no detail of plantings along the southern boundary and between the southern boundary and pool edge

·     Window changes on the southern elevation with no reference to the modified plans

·     Pool balustrade dimensions

This Section 96 application only relates to the proposed changes to the northern elevation.

 

 

Size and bulk concerns regarding the columns at the rear of the building causing overshadowing to no.35.

The supporting columns for the rear terrace roof will not result in excessive building bulk and as such will not further contribute to any significant overshadowing as the structure maintains the openness of the rear terrace.

Nothing stopping the owners putting the BBQ and planter boxes back in the area after building works in completed.

The Development Consent included a condition (2b) stating that the wall (for the BBQ) and the planter box along the northern side of the rear terrace must be deleted and replaced with clear balustrades.  The Section 96 plans have shown amendments as per the condition and the modified consent must be complied with.

 

Works continued in the areas that were yet to be approved.

Allegations about unauthorized works have been referred to Council’s Regulatory team for investigation.

 

5.       Technical Officers Comments

 

No referrals are required for this development application.

 

6.       Key Issues

 

No key issues were found.

 

7.       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 only relates to reducing the size of the ground floor window opening and to delete the BBQ and planter box to the ground floor terrace of the approved development.

(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 4 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.

 

 

7.1     Substantially the Same Development

The proposal will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the changes will result in a development that is substantially the same as that for which the consent was originally granted. The Section 96 modifications involve reducing the size of the ground floor window opening and to delete the BBQ and planter box to the ground floor terrace at the rear of the subject site. The proposed works do not result in an increase in the bulk and scale of the existing development and will remain entirely within the existing building envelope. The proposal will not result in any appreciable impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining dwellings or the character of the locality. 

 

8.       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 R2 – Low Density under the LEP and the proposal relates to the modification of the approved development to reduce the size of the ground floor window opening and to delete the BBQ and planter box to the ground floor terrace. This modification is permissible with Council’s consent and is consistent with the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposed activity and built form protects the amenity of the residents whilst enhancing the aesthetic character.

 

Clause 6.7: Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

Clause 6.7, subclause 3(a) of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 states that ‘development is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserves, open space and public areas’.

 

As such, the alterations to the approved plans will not alter the existing dwelling to create visual bulk and consequently, will not cause any significant visual impact to the coast or foreshore reserve areas. In addition to this, the proposal is not visible from the coast or the foreshore reserve areas located within the immediate vicinity of the subject site. The proposal is considered to meet the objectives of Clause 6.7 of the RLEP 2012.

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 generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. 

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

The proposed development is consistent with the dominant residential 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 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 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.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modification to the existing development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP 2012, the relevant council policies including the DCP 2013 as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed modification will result in substantially the same development as that previously approved and will not result in unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/819/2014/A of the approved development by reducing the size of the ground floor window opening and deleting the BBQ and planter box to the rear ground floor terrace, at No. 37 Park Street, Clovelly, subject to the following conditions:

 

·            Amend Condition 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA100 Rev. E

Look Design Group P/L

17.02.15

17 February 2015

DA101 Rev. A

06.11.14

19 November 2014

DA102 Rev. D

24.02.15

24 February 2015

DA103 Rev. E

17.02.15

17 February 2015

DA104 Rev. C

17.02.15

17 February 2015

DA105 Rev. C

17.02.15

24 February 2015

DA106 Rev. E

17.02.15

17 February 2015

DA107 Rev. D

17.02.15

17 February 2015

DA108 Rev. C

17.02.15

17 February 2015

DA109 Rev. C

17.02.15

17 February 2015

Exterior finishes

 

19 November 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

591052S

18 November 2014

19 November 2014

ABSA Certificate – 1007038027

18/11/2014

19 November 2014

 

except as amended by the Section 96 only in so far as they are highlighted and detailed below, and as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA102 Rev J

Look Design Group P/L

20/05/2016

DA106 Rev J

20/05/2016

DA107 Rev I

20/05/2016

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

  


Planning Committee                                                                                                          9 August 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Miscellaneous Report No. M4/16

 

Subject:              Report for Variation to Development Standard under State Environmental Planning Policy No. 1 (SEPP 1) and Clause 4.6 between 1 July to 28 July, 2016

Folder No:                F2008/00122

Author:                     Thuy Tran, Administration Assistant      

 

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 1 to 28 July, 2016 – five (5) 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.

SEPP 1 & Clause 4.6 Register from 1 to 28 July, 2016

 

 

 

 


SEPP 1 & Clause 4.6 Register from 1 to 28 July, 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

 

SEPP 1 AND CLAUSE 4.6 REGISTER BETWEEN 1 TO 28 JULY

Council DA reference No.

Lot No.

DP No.

Apart-ment/ Unit No.

Street No.

Street name

Suburb/ Town

Post-code

Category of develop-ment

Environmental planning instru-ment

Zoning of land

Develop-ment standard to be varied

Justification of variation

Extent of variation

Concur-ring authority

Date DA determi-ned

dd/mm/ yyyy

Appro-ved by

DA/308/2015

1

542982

 

120

Brook Street

COOGEE

2034

10: Mixed

RLEP 2012

B2 - Local Centre

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.

Height 13.58m increased by 1580mm or 13.16%

NSW Dept of Planning

12-Jul-16

PCM

DA/407/2016

3574

752015

 

59

Caley Street,

CHIFLEY

2036

 1: Residen-tial - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R2 - Low Density Residen-tial

Clause 4.4  - FSR = 0.5:1

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views.

FSR increased to 0.538:1  or 7.64% 

NSW Dept of Planning

22-Jul-16

Delega

ted authority

DA/333/2015

3

320320

 

29

Dolphin Street

RANDWICK

2031

 1: Residen-tial - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residen-tial

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views. Site is very vsteeply sloping.

Height 12.46m - exceeds by 2.7m or 28.42%.

NSW Dept of Planning

26-Jul-16

OCM

DA/140/2016

1

63221

1

54a

Bream Street

COOGEE

2034

 1: Residen-tial - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residen-tial

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. Conversion of existing storage/utility lot, no change to the existing building envelope.

FSR increased to 0.98:1  or 7.99% 

NSW Dept of Planning

26-Jul-16

OCM

DA/267/2016

8

108445 SUBJ TO ROW & VAR EASEMENT'S

 

15

Oswald Street

RANDWICK

2031

 1: Residen-tial - Alterations & additions

RLEP 2012

R3 - Medium Density Residen-tial

Clause 4.3  - Building height of 9.5m.

Maintains compatible scale with neighbouring buildings and does not adversely impact in terms of overshadowing, privacy and views. Site is steeply slopping.

Height 9.78m increased by 280mm or 3%.

NSW Dept of Planning

28-Jul-16

Delega

ted authority