RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 11 October 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                                                                                                       11 October 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, 11 October 2016 at 6:00 p.m.

 

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

 

Quorum:                             Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 13 September 2016

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

Planning Matters

 

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

D77/16     27 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford (DA/315/2016) Deferred.............................. 1

D78/16     30 Mermaid Avenue, MAROUBRA (DA/915/2014/A) Deferred................. 45

D79/16     202 Oberon Street, Coogee (DA/287/2015/A) Deferred ........................ 55

D80/16     4-18 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (DA/931/2015).............................. 77

D81/16     25 Bay Parade, Malabar (DA/561/2012/A)............................................... 93

D82/16     21 Meehan Street, Matraville (DA/863/2015)........................................ 101

D83/16     195 Beach Street, Coogee (DA/445/2016)............................................ 111

D84/16     40 Dutruc Street, Randwick (DA/895/2015).......................................... 125

D85/16     293-297 Alison Road, Coogee (DA/11/2015/A)..................................... 155

D86/16     18 Snape Street, Kingsford (DA/572/2016)........................................... 169

D87/16     34 Mirrabooka Crescent, Little Bay DA/502/2016)................................. 179

D88/16     25 Bay Parade, Malabar  NSW  2036 (DA/561/2012/B)......................... 187

D89/16     89-91 Bream Street, Coogee (DA/399/2016)........................................ 193

D90/16     127 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (DA/872/2014/A).......................... 217

D91/16     32-34 Perouse Road, Randwick (DA/128/2016).................................... 227

D92/16     4/199-203A Malabar Road, South Coogee (DA/153/2015/A)................. 245

D93/16     152-154 Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/281/2016).................................. 269

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting required)

M11/16     438-448 Anzac Parade, Kingsford
Fire and Rescue New South Wales (FRNSW) Report................................
287

M12/16     717 - 737 Anzac Parade, Kingsford
Fire and Rescue New South Wales (FRNSW) Report................................
295

Miscellaneous Report (record of voting NOT required)

M13/16     Cultural and Community Grants Program - Recommended Allocations - September 2016.................................................................................... 303

Miscellaneous Reports (record of voting required)

M14/16     90-98E Rainbow Street, Randwick (DA/333/2016) JRPP........................ 313

M15/16     62-88E Avoca Street, Randwick (DA/338/2016) - JRPP......................... 387

M16/16     Planning Proposal - 391-397 Anzac Parade and 17 Bunnerong Road, Kingsford.............................................................................................. 453    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                       11 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D77/16

 

Subject:              27 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford (DA/315/2016) - Deferred

Folder No:                DA/315/2016

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

 

Introduction

 

The subject application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a new upper level to provide for two additional bedrooms, bathrooms, a living area laundry and library and alter the existing ground level to install a new bathroom and stairwell and demolish the existing kitchen and remove the laundry to provide for an open plan kitchen and living area. The existing free standing garage to the rear of the site is to be demolished and a secondary dwelling erected in that area.

 

The application was recommended for approval and reported to the Council meeting of the 23rd August 2016. At the meeting it was resolved;

 

“(Stavrinos/Matson) that this matter be deferred for mediation between the applicant and the objector to discuss the issues raised at the meeting by both parties.”

 

Mediation Proceedings:

 

A mediation session was held on the 1st September 2016 between the applicant and the objector from the adjoining property at 29 Shaw Avenue Kingsford.

 

During the mediation the main issue discussed was the impact of the development upon solar access of the adjoining property at No. 29 Shaw Avenue.

 

At the conclusion of the mediation the applicant agreed to reduce the eaves to the upper level of the building to 450mm and to remove the mango tree in the rear yard. Both of these matters were agreed to in order to improve solar access to the adjoining property.

 

The objector from No.29 Shaw Avenue also wished to note that solar access could be improved by amending the plans further to lower the springing height to 2400mm, to setback the upper level a further 300mm from Council’s recommended condition of 1200mm and reduce the eaves to 450mm.

 

By email of the 12th September 2016 the applicant has withdrawn their agreement to reduce the eaves.

 

It is also noted that Council’s Landscape Technician has advised that there are no objections to the removal of the mango tree.

 

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 mediation did reach an agreement to amend the eaves and to also remove the mango tree in the rear yard. However, the applicant has after the mediation withdrawn their agreement to amend the eaves.

 

The application is referred back to Council for determination and includes a conditions to remove the mango tree.

 

Recommendation

 

A.        That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 315/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of a new secondary dwelling at 27 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford, subject to the following standard conditions contained in this report:

 

DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A0.0

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.1

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.2

Beautiful Home Studio

6/7/2016

A1.3

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.4

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.5

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.9

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A2.1

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A2.2

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A2.3

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A3.1

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

714452S

18th April 2016

A246246

18th April 2016

 

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

 

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

 

b.      The depth of the upper level rear balcony is to be reduced to a maximum of 1.5m.

 

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

 

·     W31 & W32 to the secondary dwelling.

 

d.     The privacy screen to the front balcony is to be deleted to reduce the visual bulk to the façade.

 

e.      The height of the secondary dwelling is to be reduced to a maximum of 3.6m with a maximum external wall height of 2.4m.

 

f.      The side boundary setback of the upper level from the southern side boundary is to be increased to 1200mm.

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

 

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

 

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

 

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

4.        Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

5.        In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the development cost of $ 245,465 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $ 2,454.65.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment. Please contact Council on telephone 9399 0999 or 1300 722 542 for the indexed contribution amount prior to payment.

 

To calculate the indexed levy, the following formula must be used:

 

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

CP2 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney, as published by the ABS in  respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment

CP1 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the ABS in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of imposition of the condition requiring payment of the levy.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

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

 

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

 

Sydney Water

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

 

The approved plans must be submitted to the Sydney Water Tap in™ online service, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

The Sydney Water Tap in™ online service replaces the Quick Check Agents as of 30 November 2015

 

The Tap in™ service provides 24/7 access to a range of services, including:

 

·     Building plan approvals

·     Connection and disconnection approvals

·     Diagrams

·     Trade waste approvals

·     Pressure information

·     Water meter installations

·     Pressure boosting and pump approvals

·     Change to an existing service or asset, e.g. relocating or moving an asset.

 

Sydney Water’s Tap in™ in online service is available at:

https://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/plumbing-building-developing/building/sydney-water-tap-in/index.htm

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that the developer/owner has submitted the approved plans to Sydney Water Tap in online service.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

 

Structural Adequacy

9.        Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority), certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

Stormwater Drainage

11.      A surface water/stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)     Surface water/stormwater drainage systems must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

 

b)     The surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or, subject to site suitability, the stormwater may be drained to a suitably designed absorption pit;

 

c)     Any absorption pits or soaker wells should be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance;

 

d)     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises;

 

e)     Details of any proposed drainage systems or works to be carried out in the road, footpath or nature strip must be submitted to and approved by Council before commencing these works.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

 

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

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

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

 

Construction Site Management Plan

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

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

·            location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·            location of building materials for construction;

·            provisions for public safety;

·            dust control measures;

·            site access location and construction;

·            details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·            protective measures for tree preservation;

·            provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·            location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·            details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·            provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·            construction noise and vibration management;

·            construction traffic management details.

 

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

 

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

 

Demolition Work Plan

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

 

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

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

 

·            Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

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

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

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

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

·            Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

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

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

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

 

Notes

 

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

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

 

Public Utilities

16.      A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

 

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

 

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

 

Inspections During Construction

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

 

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

 

Site Signage

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

 

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

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

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

 

Restriction on Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

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

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Demolition Work Requirements

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

 

·            Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and Regulations

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

·            WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·            Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

 

·            The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

·            Relevant EPA Guidelines

·            Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

 

·            Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

·            Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Tree Management

25.      Approval is granted for the removal of those trees in the rear yard located within the construction zone of the proposed works.

 

Ausgrid

26.      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 to an underground (UGOH) connection.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

31.      That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicants expense.

 

Ausgrid

32.      Prior to the issuing of any form of occupation certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site to an underground (UGOH) connection.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

 

Use of premises

33.      The primary dwelling must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

External Lighting

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

 

Plant & Equipment

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

 

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

 

Air Conditioners

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

 

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

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

 

Rainwater Tanks

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

 

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

·     before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

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

 

A7.      This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

A8.      Smoke alarms are required to be installed in all residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Building Code of Australia.  Details should be included in the construction certificate application.

 

A9.      Demolition work and removal of asbestos materials:

 

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

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

 

A10.    Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A11.    Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

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

A12.    Underground assets (eg pipes, cables etc) may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

 

A13.    The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A14.    Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report -  27 Shaw Avenue, KINGSFORD

 

2.

27 SHAW AVENUE, KINGSFORD (DA 315 2016) Report 23/08/2016

 

 

 

 


DA Compliance Report -  27 Shaw Avenue, KINGSFORD

Attachment 1

 

 

 

 

Development Application Compliance Report

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Folder /DA No:

DA/315/2016

PROPERTY:     

 

27 Shaw Avenue, KINGSFORD 

Proposal:

Demolition of existing garage, ground and first floor alterations and additions to existing dwelling, construction of single storey secondary dwelling to rear of site with associated works.

Recommendation:

Approval

 

Relevant Environment Planning Instruments:

 

1.      Randwick LEP 2012

 

The subject site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal development is classified as a alterations and additions to an existing dwelling and a new secondary dwelling and is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

The following Clauses of RLEP 2012 apply to the proposal:

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.65:1

0.52:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

9.5m

9.167m

Yes

 

2.      Randwick Comprehensive DCP

 

C1 Table:  Low Density Residential

 

 

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

The relevant provisions of the DCP are addressed in the table below. (Note: a number of control provisions that are not related to the proposal have been deliberately omitted.)

 

DCP Clause

Controls

Proposal

Compliance

 

Classification

Zoning = R2

 

2

Site planning

 

 

2.3

Site coverage

 

451 to 600 sqm = 50%

 

Site = 557m²

Proposed = 37%

Yes

2.4

Landscaping and permeable surfaces

 

i)     451 to 600 sqm = 30%

i)     Deep soil minimum width 900mm.

ii)    Maximise permeable surfaces to front

iii)   Retain existing or replace mature native trees

iv)   Minimum 1 canopy tree (8m mature). Smaller (4m mature) If site restrictions apply.

v)    Locating paved areas, underground services away from root zones.

Site = 557m²

Proposed = 30%

Yes

2.5

Private open space (POS)

 

Dwelling & Semi-Detached POS

 

 

 

451 to 600 sqm = 7m x 7m

 

Site = 557m²

Proposed = 7m x 12m

Yes

3

Building envelope

3.1

Floor space ratio LEP 2012 = 0.65:1

Site area = 557m²

Proposed FSR = 0.52:1

Yes

3.2

Building height

 

 

 

Maximum overall height LEP 2012  =

Proposed = 9.167m &

3.702m

Yes

 

i)   Maximum external wall height = 7m (Minimum floor to ceiling height = 2.7m)

ii)   Sloping sites = 8m

iii)  Merit assessment if exceeded

Proposed = 6.8m & 3.1m

Yes

3.3

Setbacks

3.3.1

Front setbacks

i)   Average setbacks of adjoining (if none then no less than 6m) Transition area then merit assessment.

ii)   Corner allotments: Secondary street frontage:

-    900mm for allotments with primary frontage width of less than 7m

-    1500mm for all other sites

iii)  do not locate swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings in front

No change to existing front setback

 

3.3.2

Side setbacks:

Dwellings:

·     Frontage less than 9m = 900mm

·     Frontage b/w 9m and 12m = 900mm (Gnd & 1st floor) 1500mm above

·     Frontage over 12m = 1200mm (Gnd & 1st floor), 1800mm above.

Minimum = 1200mm

Proposed = 2486mm to northern and 956mm to southern boundaries.

No to southern, see Key Issues

3.3.3

Rear setbacks

i)   Minimum 25% of allotment depth or 8m, whichever lesser. Note: control does not apply to corner allotments.

ii)   Provide greater than aforementioned or demonstrate not required, having regard to:

-    Existing predominant rear setback line - reasonable view sharing (public and private)

-    protect the privacy and solar access

iii)  Garages, carports, outbuildings, swimming or spa pools, above-ground water tanks, and unroofed decks and terraces attached to the dwelling may encroach upon the required rear setback, in so far as they comply with other relevant provisions of this DCP.

iv)  For irregularly shaped lots = merit assessment on basis of:-

-    Compatibility

-    POS dimensions comply

-    minimise solar access, privacy and view sharing impacts

 

Refer to 6.3  and 7.4 for parking facilities and  outbuildings

Minimum = 8m

Proposed = 17m

Yes

4

Building design

4.5

Colours, Materials and Finishes

 

i)   Schedule of materials and finishes

ii)   Finishing is durable and non-reflective.

iii)  Minimise expanses of rendered masonry at street frontages (except due to heritage consideration)

iv)  Articulate and create visual interest by using combination of materials and finishes.

v)  Suitable for the local climatic to withstand natural weathering, ageing and deterioration.

vi)  recycled and re-use sandstone

(See also section 8.3 foreshore area.)

To be conditioned

 

4.6

Earthworks

 

i)   excavation and backfilling limited to 1m, unless gradient too steep

ii)   minimum 900mm side and rear setback

iii)  Step retaining walls

iv)  site conditions allow for side or rear setback less than 900mm (max 2.2m)

v)  sloping sites down to street level must minimise blank retaining walls (use combination of materials, and landscaping)

vi)  cut and fill for POS is terraced

where site has significant slope:

vii) adopt a split-level design

viii)   Minimise height and extent of any exposed under-croft areas.

The extent of earthworks do not exceed the DCP controls.

Yes

5

Amenity

5.1

Solar access and overshadowing

 

Solar access to proposed development:

 

 

 

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

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

The north facing windows of the dwelling and the POS will continue to received solar access in accordance with the DCP controls

Yes

 

Solar access to neighbouring development:

 

 

 

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

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

v)  solar panels on neighbouring dwellings, which are situated not less than 6m above ground level (existing), must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June. If no panels, direct sunlight must be retained to the northern, eastern and/or western roof planes (not <6m above ground) of neighbouring dwellings.

vi)  Variations may acceptable be subject to:

·     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.

See Key Issues above in relation to the submission from the adjoining owner in relation to impact to the existing solar panels.

 

The proposal satisfies the DCP control with respect to maintaining the minimum solar access to the POS of the adjoining dwelling to the south, No. 29 Shaw Avenue.

 

There will be some additional overshadowing to the north facing windows of the adjoining dwelling however this arises because of the site orientation and not because of an inappropriate building design. It is also noted that the proposal satisfies the DCP control in relation to the FSR and Building Height.

Yes

5.2

Energy Efficiency and Natural Ventilation

 

i)   Provide day light to internalised areas within the dwelling (for example, hallway, stairwell, walk-in-wardrobe and the like) and any poorly lit habitable rooms via measures such as:

·     Skylights (ventilated)

·     Clerestory windows

·     Fanlights above doorways

·     Highlight windows in internal partition walls

·     living rooms contain windows and doors opening to outdoor areas

Note: The sole reliance on skylight or clerestory window for natural lighting and ventilation is not acceptable

The design of the alterations and additions to the dwelling and the secondary dwelling allows for light and ventilation throughout the dwelling.

 

Yes

5.3

Visual Privacy

 

Windows

 

 

 

i)   minimise any direct viewing habitable of proposed and neighbours habitable room windows by one or more of the following measures:

-    windows are offset or staggered

-    minimum 1600mm window sills

-    Install fixed and translucent glazing up 1600mm minimum effective sill.

-    Install fixed privacy screens to windows.

-    Creating a recessed courtyard (minimum 3m x 2m).

ii)   orientate living and dining windows away from similar opposite (that is front or rear or side courtyard

The windows to the upper level side elevations are all of high light style with sill heights of 1600mm, except W11 which is of fixed obscured glazing up to 1600mm.

 

A condition is included to require W31 & W32 to the secondary dwelling to be amended to comply with the DCP controls.

Yes, subject to proposed conditions.

 

Balcony

 

 

 

i)   Upper floor balconies to street or rear yard of the site. (wrap around balcony to have a narrow width at side)

i)   Privacy screens

ii)   minimise overlooking of POS via privacy screens (fixed, minimum of 1600mm high and achieve  minimum of 70% opaqueness (glass, timber or metal slats and louvers)

iii)  Supplementary privacy devices:  Screen planting and planter boxes Not sole privacy protection measure)

iv)  vi) For sloping sites, step down and avoid large areas of ground floor decks or terraces.

The upper level includes balconies to the front and rear of the dwelling. Privacy screens are proposed to both sides of the rear balcony and to the southern side of the front balcony.

A condition of consent is included to nominate the design of the screens to the rear balcony and to delete the screen to the front balcony as it is unnecessary and adds unnecessarily to the bulk of the façade of the dwelling.

A further condition requires the width of the deck to be reduced to 1.5m in order to limit amenity impacts on neighbours.

Yes, subject to conditions.

7.4

Outbuildings

 

i)   Locate behind the front building line.

ii)   Locate to optimise backyard space and not over required permeable areas.

iii)  Except for laneway development, only single storey (3.6m max. height and 2.4m max. wall height)

iv)  Nil side and rear setbacks where:

-    finished external walls (not requiring maintenance;

-    no openings facing neighbours lots and

-    maintain adequate solar access to the neighbours dwelling

v)  Must not be used as a separate business premises.

The secondary dwelling is located within the rear yard and has an overall height of 3.7m and an external wall height of 3.1m. A condition of consent is included to require the secondary dwelling to be amended to satisfy the controls.

 

The setbacks of the secondary dwelling will not result in any adverse impact upon the amenity of the adjoining properties.

 

 

Yes, subject to conditions.

 

3.      79C Matters for consideration

 

Section 79C ‘Matters for Consideration’

Comments

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

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 enhancing the aesthetic character and protecting the amenity of the local residents.

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

The proposal generally satisfies the objectives and controls of the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. See table below.

 

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

The relevant clauses of the Regulations have been satisfied.

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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.

 

4.      Referral Comments

 

5.      DEVELOPMENT CONSENT CONDITIONS

 

GENERAL CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

A0.0

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.1

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.2

Beautiful Home Studio

6/7/2016

A1.3

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.4

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.5

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A1.9

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A2.1

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A2.2

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A2.3

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

A3.1

Beautiful Home Studio

12/03/2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

714452S

18th April 2016

A246246

18th April 2016

 

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

 

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

 

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

 

Consent Requirements

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

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

3.          Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Manager Development Assessments prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

 

Section 94A Development Contributions

4.        In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the development cost of $ 245 465 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $ 2 454.65.

 

The levy must be paid in cash, bank cheque or by credit card prior to a construction certificate being issued for the proposed development.  The development is subject to an index to reflect quarterly variations in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the date of Council’s determination to the date of payment. Please contact Council on telephone 9399 0999 or 1300 722 542 for the indexed contribution amount prior to payment.

 

To calculate the indexed levy, the following formula must be used:

 

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

CP2 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney, as published by the ABS in  respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of payment

CP1 = the Consumer Price Index, All Groups, Sydney as published by the ABS in respect of the quarter ending immediately prior to the date of imposition of the condition requiring payment of the levy.

 

Council’s Section 94A Development Contribution Plans may be inspected at the Customer Service Centre, Administrative Centre, 30 Frances Street, Randwick or at www.randwick.nsw.gov.au.

 

Long Service Levy Payments

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

 

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

 

Sydney Water

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

 

The approved plans must be submitted to the Sydney Water Tap in™ online service, to determine whether the development will affect Sydney Water’s waste water and water mains, stormwater drains and/or easements, and if any further requirements need to be met. 

 

The Sydney Water Tap in™ online service replaces the Quick Check Agents as of 30 November 2015

 

The Tap in™ service provides 24/7 access to a range of services, including:

 

·     Building plan approvals

·     Connection and disconnection approvals

·     Diagrams

·     Trade waste approvals

·     Pressure information

·     Water meter installations

·     Pressure boosting and pump approvals

·     Change to an existing service or asset, e.g. relocating or moving an asset.

 

Sydney Water’s Tap in™ in online service is available at:

https://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/plumbing-building-developing/building/sydney-water-tap-in/index.htm

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that the developer/owner has submitted the approved plans to Sydney Water Tap in online service.

 

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

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

 

Compliance with the Building Code of Australia

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

 

      Structural Adequacy

8.        Certificate of Adequacy supplied by a professional engineer shall be submitted to the certifying authority (and the Council, if the Council is not the certifying authority), certifying the structural adequacy of the existing structure to support the additional storey.

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

Stormwater Drainage

10.      A surface water/stormwater drainage system must be provided in accordance with the following requirements, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate:-

 

a)     Surface water/stormwater drainage systems must be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia (Volume 2);

 

a)     The surface water/stormwater must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or, subject to site suitability, the stormwater may be drained to a suitably designed absorption pit;

 

b)     Any absorption pits or soaker wells should be located not less than 3m from any adjoining premises and the stormwater must not be directed to any adjoining premises or cause a nuisance;

 

c)     External paths and ground surfaces are to be constructed at appropriate levels and be graded and drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in the entry of water into the building, or cause a nuisance or damage to the adjoining premises;

 

d)     Details of any proposed drainage systems or works to be carried out in the road, footpath or nature strip must be submitted to and approved by Council before commencing these works.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKS

 

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

 

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

 

 

Certification, PCA & other Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Home Building Act 1989

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

 

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

 

Construction Site Management Plan

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

 

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

·            location of site storage areas/sheds/equipment;

·            location of building materials for construction;

·            provisions for public safety;

·            dust control measures;

·            site access location and construction;

·            details of methods of disposal of demolition materials;

·            protective measures for tree preservation;

·            provisions for temporary sanitary facilities;

·            location and size of waste containers/bulk bins;

·            details of proposed sediment and erosion control measures;

·            provisions for temporary stormwater drainage;

·            construction noise and vibration management;

·            construction traffic management details.

 

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

 

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

 

Demolition Work Plan

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

 

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

 

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

 

·            Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

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

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

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

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

·            Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

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

·          Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

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

 

Notes

 

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

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

 

Public Utilities

15.      A Public Utility Impact Assessment must be carried out on all public utility services on the site, roadway, nature strip, footpath, public reserve or any public areas associated with and/or adjacent to the development/building works and include relevant information from public utility authorities and exploratory trenching or pot-holing, if necessary, to determine the position and level of service.

 

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

 

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

 

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

 

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

 

 

Inspections During Construction

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

 

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

 

Site Signage

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

 

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

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

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

 

Restriction on Working Hours

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

 

Activity

Permitted working hours

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

·   Monday to Friday - 7.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

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

 

·   Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm

·   Saturday - No work permitted

·   Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted

 

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

 

Demolition Work Requirements

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

 

·            Work Health & Safety Act 2011 and Regulations

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

·            WorkCover NSW Guidelines and Codes of Practice

·            Australian Standard 2601 (2001) – Demolition of Structures

·            The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations

·            Relevant EPA Guidelines

·            Randwick City Council Asbestos Policy

 

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

 

Removal of Asbestos Materials

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

 

·            Relevant Occupational Health & Safety legislation and WorkCover NSW requirements

·            Randwick City Council’s Asbestos Policy

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Sediment & Erosion Control

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

 

Public Safety & Site Management

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Tree Management

24.      Approval is granted for the removal of those trees in the rear yard located within the construction zone of the proposed works.

 

 

Ausgrid

25.      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 to an underground (UGOH) connection.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF AN OCCUPATION CERTIFICATE

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

 

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

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

30.      That part of the naturestrip upon Council's footway which is damaged during the construction of the proposed works shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu turf or similar. Such works shall be completed at the applicants expense.

 

Ausgrid

31.      Prior to the issuing of any form of occupation certificate the applicant must meet the full cost for Ausgrid to relocate the existing overhead power feed from the distribution pole in the street to the development site to an underground (UGOH) connection.

 

OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Use of premises

32.      The primary dwelling must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

 

External Lighting

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

 

Plant & Equipment

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

 

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

 

Air Conditioners

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

 

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

 

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

 

Rainwater Tanks

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

 

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

·     before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

A1       This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and other relevant Standards.  All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards and you are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

 

A2       In accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979, building works, including associated demolition and excavation works (as applicable) must not be commenced until:

 

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

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

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

 

A3       Council’s Building Certification & Fire Safety team can issue your Construction Certificate and be your Principal Certifying Authority for the development, to undertake inspections and ensure compliance with the development consent, relevant building regulations and standards of construction.  For further details contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A4       A Local Approval application must be submitted to and be approved by Council prior to commencing any of the following activities on a footpath, road, nature strip or in any public place:

 

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

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

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

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

A5       Specific details of the location of the building/s should be provided in the Construction Certificate to demonstrate that the proposed building work will not encroach onto the adjoining properties, Council’s road reserve or any public place.

 

A6       This consent does not authorise any trespass or encroachment upon any adjoining or supported land or building whether private or public.  Where any underpinning, shoring, soil anchoring (temporary or permanent) or the like is proposed to be carried out upon any adjoining or supported land, the land owner or principal contractor must obtain:

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

A7       Smoke alarms are required to be installed in all residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and the Building Code of Australia.  Details should be included in the construction certificate application.

 

A8       Demolition work and removal of asbestos materials:

 

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

 

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

 

A9       Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A10     Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

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

A11     Underground assets (eg pipes, cables etc) may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

 

A12     The applicant is to advise Council in writing and/or photographs of any signs of existing damage to the Council roadway, footway, or verge prior to the commencement of any building/demolition works.

 

A13     Further information and details on Council's requirements for trees on development sites can be obtained from the recently adopted Tree Technical Manual, which can be downloaded from Council’s website at the following link, http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au - Looking after our environment – Trees – Tree Management Technical Manual; which aims to achieve consistency of approach and compliance with appropriate standards and best practice guidelines.

 

 


27 SHAW AVENUE, KINGSFORD (DA 315 2016) Report 23/08/2016

Attachment 2

 

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Director City Planning Report No. CP55/16

 

Subject:              27 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford (DA/315/2016)

Folder No:                DA/315/2016

Author:                     Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 


Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to dwelling, including first floor addition, construction of a single storey secondary dwelling to the rear of the site and associated site works

Ward:                        West Ward

Applicant:                Beautiful Home Studio

Owner:                     H & H Nguyen

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=5dde1178-e898-44a3-863c-6b2c6799fe21&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The application details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including a new upper level to provide for two additional bedrooms, bathrooms, a living area laundry and library and alter the existing ground level to install a new bathroom and stairwell and demolish the existing kitchen and remove the laundry to provide for an open plan kitchen and living area. The existing free standing garage to the rear of the site is to be demolished and a secondary dwelling erected in that area.

 

Site

 

The site is on the eastern side of Shaw Avenue and has a frontage of 12.19m, depth of 45.72m and area of 557m². The site is relatively level. The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of single and two storey dwellings.

 

Image 1: Subject site

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Issue

Comment

29 Shaw Avenue Kingsford

 

-The proposal will result in significant overshadowing to their property, the position of their house has been incorrectly shown and the existing mango tree has been shown undersized. The development in combination with the current overshadowing of the mango tree will provide near total exclusion of sun to their northern boundary.

 

-There will be significant overshadowing to their solar panels.

 

-The first floor balcony overlooks their backyard resulting in a total lack of visual privacy.

 

 

 

 

 

-There is a potential for the building to be used as a dual occupancy or a commercial use which will result in a loss of parking in the locality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The springing height of the first floor at 3.1m produces a building of excessive bulk thereby increasing the overshadowing effect of the proposal.

 

-The setback of the building to the southern boundary does not comply with the DCP which does nothing to mitigate the overshadowing.

 

-The SEE document is incorrect in relation to the description of the property as it is not an ‘existing commercial building’, the north and south side setbacks are incorrect, the proposal does not ‘respond to its context and adhere to the predominant scale, height and bulk of existing buildings’, the eastern balcony directly overlooks the neighbouring backyards, the type of trees are incorrect and the conclusion is false.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The 8am shadow diagram is incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

-The rooms labelled as ‘existing study and store’ are in fact bedrooms.

 

 

-The representation of their house on the streetscape drawing is incorrect.

 

 

 

 

 

-The design of the granny flat is extremely crude and the siting will lead to a loss of visual and acoustic privacy to the northern neighbour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The proposal fails to incorporate the most basic principles of environmentally sustainable design in relation to heating and cooling, sun control and lack of effective cross ventilation in the granny flat.

 

25 Shaw Avenue Kingsford

 

-There are concerns in relation to visual privacy from the rear deck and first floor windows.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-The proposal will result in a loss of acoustic privacy due to the location of the other building entrance on the northern side of the dwelling and the proximity of the granny flat to their southern boundary.

 

 

-The design of the building is effectively a dual occupancy by stealth in contravention of Council regulations and the use of the building will potentially cause an increase of cars and parking.

 

 

 

 

84 Eastern Avenue Kingsford

-The rear balcony will result in overlooking directly into their rear yard, in conjunction with the removal of the existing large tree in their backyard.

 

 

 

See Key Issues Section.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues Section

 

 

Privacy screens are proposed to both sides of the rear balcony. A condition of consent is included to nominate the design of the screens to ensure they will perform as required in the DCP controls and to reduce the width of the deck to 1.5m

 

The proposal details alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, which will remain a single dwelling, and the erection of a secondary dwelling within the rear yard. A proposed condition of consent requires retention of the primary building on the site as a single dwelling. The existing off street parking in the driveway remains and there is no requirement for additional parking on site to be provided for secondary dwellings.

 

The overall bulk and scale to the development satisfies the FSR and height controls of the LEP.

 

 

See Key Issues Section

 

 

 

 

The term ‘existing commercial building’ mentioned in the SEE is an extract from the RLEP relating to the objectives of the R2 zone, it is not a description of this building.

There is an error in the SEE as the north and south setbacks have been noted the wrong way around. The correct setbacks are evident on the plans and do not result an incorrect assessment of the proposal or the impacts upon the adjoining properties.

The nature of the development is consistent with other two storey buildings in the surrounding and immediate locality. The general location of the trees on site is accurate on the site and survey plans, the actual species is not relevant to the assessment of this application. It is also noted that the removal of the trees in the location of the works has been approved as part of this application.

 

The shadow diagrams included with the application provide an accurate illustration of the extent or overshadowing upon the adjoining properties.

 

The nominated use of these rooms on the plan reflect the current use by the occupants of the dwelling

 

The streetscape elevation is a diagrammatic representation and is not intended to replace a detailed site inspection of the street which has been carried out as part of the assessment of this application.

 

The secondary dwelling is a small structure sited within the rear yard. This dwelling is of single storey nature and overlooking from the windows will be limited due to the existing side boundary fencing and a proposed condition requires sill heights to be raised to 1.6m above floor level for north facing windows or to have obscured glazing to this height. There is no evidence that the location of the secondary dwelling will result in a loss of acoustic privacy to the adjoining properties.

 

Noted. The proposal does include BASIX Certificates for both the alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and the new secondary dwelling.

 

 

 

 

 

The rear deck includes privacy screens are proposed to both sides. A condition of consent is included to nominate the design of the screens to ensure they will perform as required in the DCP controls and a further condition requires the width of the deck to be reduced to 1.5m. The upper level windows are all either of high light design or of obscured glazing to a sill height of 1600mm which satisfies the DCP controls.

 

There is no evidence that the location of the secondary dwelling will result in a loss of acoustic privacy to the adjoining properties. It is noted that the door to the secondary dwelling is not opposite a window or door to the adjoining dwelling as it is sited towards the rear of the site.

 

The design of the alterations and additions to the dwelling does not constitute the creation of a dual occupancy, and the secondary dwelling satisfies the ARH SEPP which allows for secondary dwellings. A proposed condition of consent requires retention of the primary dwellings as a single occupancy dwelling.

 

The rear balcony is sited almost 17m from the rear boundary which is acceptable separation for maintaining privacy in residential environments.

 

Key Issues

 

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

The SEPP was introduced on 31 July 2009 to increase the supply and diversity of affordable rental and social housing in NSW. The SEPP was amended on 20 May 2011 to require new in-fill development; low rise development; boarding houses, and Housing NSW proposals to be subject to a local character test to ensure that developments are consistent with the design of the local area and the affordable housing component being provided as a percentage of the total floor space. The amendment does not change provisions for other types of accommodation such as granny flats, group homes and supportive accommodation.

 

This application has been submitted seeking consent under Division 2 of the SEPP: Affordable housing 2009 for Secondary dwellings and its provisions will not be affected by the abovementioned review. Under Division 2 the following clauses are relevant:

 

Clause 19 Definition

The proposed development falls within the scope of the definition of a secondary dwelling in that it entails development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling by use of a structure which is not an individual lot in a strata plan or community title scheme.

 

Clause 20 Land to which this division applies

This subject site is located on Zone R2 Low Density Residential identified under the SEPP Affordable Rental Housing 2009 and the development for the purposes of a secondary dwelling is permissible on the land.

 

Clause 21 Development to which Division applies

The proposed development for a secondary dwelling may be carried out with consent under this SEPP subject to Clause 22 below.

 

Clause 22   Development may be carried out with consent

Under Subclause 3(a) & (b) the following criteria apply:

 

(a)      the total floor area of the principal dwelling and the secondary dwelling must be no more than the maximum floor area allowed for a dwelling house on the land under another environmental planning instrument, and

 

(b)      the total floor area of the secondary dwelling is no more than 60 square metres or, if a greater floor area is permitted in respect of a secondary dwelling on the land under another environmental planning instrument, that greater floor area.

 

The proposal complies with the LEP for dwelling houses with a floor space ratio of 0.52:1. The proposed floor area of the secondary dwelling does not exceed the 60m² allowable in the SEPP for Affordable Housing, being 27m².

 

Clause 24   No subdivision

The proposed development does not result in any subdivision of the lot on which development for the purposes of the secondary dwelling has been carried out under this Division.

 

Side setbacks

The relevant objectives of the DCP with respect to setbacks seek;

 

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

b)  To ensure the form and massing of development complement and enhance the streetscape character,

c)  To ensure adequate separation between neighbouring buildings for visual and acoustic private and solar access,

d)  To reserve adequate areas for the retention or creation of private open space and deep soil planting, and

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

 

The southern boundary setback of the upper level maintains the existing setback of the dwelling between 956mm and 1028mm from the side boundary which is less than the nominated 1200mm setback in the DCP control.

 

An important consideration of this application is that the new upper level is sited directly above the existing walls of the ground level of the dwelling which is common practice when modifying existing dwellings in this manner. However the established pattern of setbacks in the street includes examples of upper level setbacks such as to the adjoining dwelling which are setback further from the ground level which not only increases the side setback of the dwelling but also provides for a greater level of modulation to the building. A condition of consent is therefore included to require that the setback of the upper level of the dwelling to the southern side be increased to 1200mm. This can be readily achieved due to the generous room sizes and configuration at the upper level.

 

Solar access to adjoining properties

The objectives of the RDCP Part 5.1 with respect to Solar Access and Overshadowing seek;

 

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

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

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

 

The relevant controls of the RDCP 5.1 with respect to Solar Access and Overshadowing and existing solar panels on neighbouring dwellings state that where existing solar panels are situated not less than 6m above ground level they must retain a minimum of 3 hours of direct sunlight between 8am and 4pm on 21 June.

 

The adjoining dwelling at No.29 Shaw Avenue is a single storey dwelling which has solar panels to the northern side of the roof. The solar panels are less that the 6m above ground nominated in the above control and therefore the requirement to maintain solar access to those panels is not triggered.

 

Due to the site orientation there will be some unavoidable overshadowing upon the adjoining property No.29 Shaw Avenue which is directly to the south of the subject property. It is acknowledged that there will be overshadowing upon their north facing windows and solar panels, however that overshadowing arises because of the site orientation and not because of an inappropriate building design. It is also noted that the alterations and additions to the dwelling will provide for a two storey dwelling that reflects the desired future character of the locality as expressed in the planning controls in the LEP and the RDCP.

 

To restrict any development upon this dwelling in the form proposed to maintain the existing level of solar access to the solar panels of No.29 Shaw Avenue would be an unreasonable restriction upon the owners, especially given that the development also complies with the RDCP controls relating to FSR and building height, and by a condition of consent to increase the side setback of the new upper level of the dwelling on the southern side.

 

Privacy impacts

 

North facing windows W31 & W32 to the secondary dwelling are required by proposed condition to have sill heights raised to 1.6m above floor level or have opaque glazing to this height in order to protect the amenity of adjacent properties.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

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

 

 


 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 315/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling and construction of a new secondary dwelling at 27 Shaw Avenue, Kingsford, 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:

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

 

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

 

b.      The depth of the upper level rear balcony is to be reduced to a maximum of 1.5m.

 

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

 

·     W31 & W32 to the secondary dwelling.

 

d.     The privacy screen to the front balcony is to be deleted to reduce the visual bulk to the façade.

 

e.      The height of the secondary dwelling is to be reduced to a maximum of 3.6m with a maximum external wall height of 2.4m.

 

f.      The side boundary setback of the upper level from the southern side boundary is to be increased to 1200mm.

 

 


Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 27 Shaw Avenue, KINGSFORD

Included under separate cover

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                       11 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D78/16

 

Subject:              30 Mermaid Avenue, MAROUBRA (DA/915/2014/A) Deferred

Folder No:                DA/915/2014/A

Author:                     Kerry Kyriacou, Acting Director City Planning       

 

Introduction

 

The applicant is seeking approval pursuant to a Section 96 application to amend Condition No. 4 relating to the approved colours, materials and finishes. The application was recommended for refusal and was reported to the Planning Committee Meeting on 13 September 2016. At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

“RESOLUTION: (Andrews/Seng) that the application be deferred for mediation.”

 

Issues

 

The Mediation session was held on 22 September 2016 and resulted in the following outcome:

 

Mediation outcome

 

·     All participants acknowledged that the approved colour is “mouse grey” and that the applicant applied for the colour “monument”, a dark colour.

 

·     By way of a proposed compromise the applicant tabled an alternative colour for the Alucobond external cladding material – “dark grey metal”.

 

·     The neighbours from No 28 requested of the applicant samples of the 3 colours (approved, section 96 application and alternative proposed at mediation) to view during daylight hours. This request was agreed.

 

·     The neighbours agreed to advise the applicant by Monday 26 September whether they accept the compromise colour or not and also to advise Council’s Mediation Coordinator by phone or email on 26 September of their position.

 

·     Request that the Mediation Coordinator provide a note to the Council’s assessment officer of the neighbour’s decision in order that it may be recorded in the next report to the Council.

 

The objector has subsequently advised Council that their concerns about the darkness of the colour remain and that they will leave the decision to Council’s discretion.

 

The “dark grey metal” alternative colour is provided below and is juxtaposed against the approved colour “Mouse grey” and the colour sought under the S96 application “Monument”.

 

 

 

                              http://autolift.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Monument.jpg

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

 

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

As per Council’s resolution, the application is referred back to Council for determination.

 

Recommendation

 

A.        That Council, as the consent authority, refuses its development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/915/2014/A by amending condition No.4 relating to the colours, materials and finishes, at 30 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra for the following reasons: 

1.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of R2 – Low Density zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the darker colour for the external cladding will not be compatible with the desirable future character of the area and will also affect the amenity of the adjoining neighbours.

 

2.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of Clause 6.7 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposed colour schedule will adversely affect the aesthetic values of the foreshore area.

 

3.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Part B10 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the colour schedule will not be compatiable with the predominant colour palette of the foreshore area.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

30 Mermaid Avenue, MAROUBRA (DA 915 2014 A) Report for 13 September, 2016

 

 

 

 


30 Mermaid Avenue, MAROUBRA (DA 915 2014 A) Report for 13 September, 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D72/16

 

Subject:              30 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra (DA/915/2014/A)

Folder No:                DA/915/2014/A

Author:                     Tuong-Vi Doan, Environmental Planning Officer      

 


Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development to amend condition no. 4 relating to the colours, materials and finishes. Original consent: Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of a new three storey dwelling house containing living areas and 4 bedrooms with basement car park and storage, front swimming pool, rear terrace area, associated site works and landscaping

 Ward:                         Central Ward

 Applicant:                 Ebru Lockwood

 Owner:                      Ebru Lockwood

 Summary

 Recommendation:    Refusal

 

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

1.        Details of the Current Approval

 

Development consent was granted on 14 July 2015 for the demolition of an existing dwelling house and construction of a new three storey dwelling house containing living areas and 4 bedrooms with basement car park and storage, a front swimming pool and balcony area, a rear terrace area, associated site works and landscaping.

 

The development consent placed Condition 4 requiring the submission and approval of a lighter tone of cladding prior to issue of the construction certificate. This recommendation was with respect to external materials and finishes in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and given the prominence of the site when viewed from surrounding areas including across Lurline Bay in Liguria Street.

 

Relevant history:

Due to the condition placed, the applicant submitted in the colours/materials suggesting that the originally proposed dark grey zinc-coated metal ”monument” would be substituted by “mouse grey” Alucobond for the metal wall cladding. It was confirmed that the colours/materials submitted on 6/10/15 were acceptable and satisfied Condition 4 of the development consent.

 

http://autolift.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Monument.jpg                                  

Figure 1 Originally and present proposed colour                    Figure 2 Approved colour   

 

2.        Details of the Proposed Modification

 

The applicant seeks to amend the approved development to amend condition no. 4 relating to the colours, materials and finishes. The condition reads:

 

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

Details of the proposed colours, materials and textures (i.e. a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development. In this regard, the zinc coated metal sheeting on the eastern and western elevations must be of a lighter tone to accord more with surrounding dwellings having regard to the prominent location of the site within Council’s Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

The applicant has proposed for the colour “Monument” for the eastern and western external cladding of the dwelling and has provided their justification to do so.

 

 

 

 

3.        Site

 

The site is an almost regular shaped allotment with a frontage of 15.295m to Mermaid Avenue, a rear boundary width of 15.24m, eastern and western side boundary depths of 54.18m and 55.495m and a total site area of 835.6m2.

 

The land has a fall from the rear to the street of approximately 6m constituting a gradient of approximately 12%. Additional the site has an east west cross fall of approximately 6% at the rear increasing in the front section of the site to about 9%.

 

The site is occupied by a single storey brick and tile dwelling to be demolished. To the east the site is bound by a 3 storey dwelling house and to the south and west by single storey dwelling houses.

 

The locality is predominantly occupied by detached dwelling houses of from single storey to 3- 4 storeys in character.

 

Dwellings in the locality enjoy interrupted to expansive ocean views to the east and north east over Lurline Bay and the Pacific Ocean.

 

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:

 

28 Mermaid Avenue

Issues

Comments

The proposed colour will have adverse visual impacts to their dwelling – the dark cladding will impact on natural light/solar access

The proposed colour for the zinc coated sheeting on the eastern and western elevations is too dark and does not comply with the relevant controls of Part B10 of the DCP and will also have the potential to impact on the light reflections to the neighbouring properties.

The dark colour along with the height, length and bulk of the dwelling will promote and enhance overshadowing.

As noted above, the proposed colour is not suitable in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and should not be supported.

The subject development may devalue their property

The devaluation of property is not part of the Section 79C Assessment.

The colour will be at odds with the external appearance of other dwellings in the streetscape/not consistent with the streetscape

See Key Issues for discussion.

The expanse of the zinc coated metal sheeting in fixed panels are more suitable in commercial areas and not desired in residential areas not does it comply with the foreshore area.

See Key Issues for discussion.

 

5.        Technical Officers Comments

 

No referrals are required for this development application.

 

 

 

6.        Key Issues

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP)

 

Clause 6.7 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

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

(a)    to recognise, protect and enhance the natural, visual and environmental qualities of the scenic areas of the coastline,

(b)    to protect and improve visually prominent areas adjoining the coastal foreshore,

(c)    to protect significant public views to and from the coast,

(d)    to ensure development in these areas is appropriate for the location and does not detract from the scenic qualities of the coast.

(3) Development consent must not be granted for development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that the development:

(a)    is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast, foreshore reserve, open space and public areas, and

(b)    Contributes to the scenic quality of the coast foreshore.

 

Comments:

The subject site is located within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (Clause 6.7) under the Randwick LEP 2012. The consent authority may only grant consent to a building within the foreshore scenic protection area after it has considered the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed building in relation to the foreshore.

 

A submission was received stating concerns for the proposed amendment. However it should be noted that the original development application did not receive any submissions highlighting the issues of the dark colour schedule of the dwelling. The proposal only relates to the metal cladding on the eastern and western side elevations of the dwelling whilst the front façade does not have prominent dark tones. The eastern and western elevations are articulated with window openings and vertically fixed privacy screens, which breaks up the effect of visual bulk of the side walls.

 

However, subclause 6.7 (3)(a) of the LEP 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’ and as such, the modification to amend the condition relating to the colours, materials and finishes schedule is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the zone and will adversely affect the aesthetic values of the foreshore areas.

 

Overall, the proposed modification is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant clause of the RLEP 2012.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

 

Part B10 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The applicant has provided the following example of houses within the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area that have dark external finishes:

 

·      10 Andrew Street, Clovelly

·      1 Seaside Parade, South Coogee

·      48 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

·      37 The Corso Street, Maroubra

·      5 Wilson Street, Maroubra

·      26 Torrington Street, Maroubra

·      9 Lurline Street, Maroubra

Whilst it is acknowledged that these properties have darker external finishes, none of these examples have been approved under the current DCP.

 

The DCP control specifically stipulates that the design of the building must consider their visual representation of the surrounding public domain and that the exterior colour scheme must complement the natural elements in the coastal area. The colour palette must predominantly consist of light toned neutral hues in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.

 

The purpose and the intent of the condition was to maintain consistency with the DCP and also to minimise the potential impact on the visual scenic qualities of the foreshore area. Furthermore, the site is in a prominent location and therefore the colour for the subject dwelling would need to be carefully considered in order to minimise the potential impact.

 

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 amending Condition no.4 relating to the colours, materials and finishes schedule 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.

Submission has been considered.

 

 

 

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 amend the condition relating to the colours, materials and finishes to allow for a darker tone for the eastern and western external cladding. This modification is conflicting with the objectives of the zone in that it is unable to recognise the desirable elements of the existing streetscape.

 

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 modification to amend the condition relating to the colours, materials and finishes schedule is considered to be conflicting with the objectives of the zone in relation to the protection of the foreshore scenic protection area and will cause significant visual impact to the coast or foreshore reserve areas.

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

Not applicable.    

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

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

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

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

Not applicable.

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

The relevant conditions of the existing consent remain enforceable.

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

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

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

The site is considered to be suitable for the proposal.

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

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

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

The proposed modification will result in adverse impact upon the foreshore scenic protection area and is not considered to be in the public interest.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application to modify Condition No. 4 of the Development Consent relating to the colour schedule is to be refused as it does not satisfy or meet the relevant objectives and controls of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area.  

 

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses its development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/915/2014/A by amending condition No.4 relating to the colours, materials and finishes, at 30 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra for the following reasons: 

1.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of R2 – Low Density zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 as the darker colour for the external cladding will not be compatible with the desirable future character of the area and will also affect the amenity of the adjoining neighbours.

 

2.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of Clause 6.7 Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in that the proposed colour schedule will adversely affect the aesthetic values of the foreshore area.

 

3.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives and controls of the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area under Part B10 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the colour schedule will not be compatiable with the predominant colour palette of the foreshore area.

 


Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                       11 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D79/16

 

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

Folder No:                DA/287/2015/A

Author:                     Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by providing an additional storey containing the living areas to a three bedroom dwelling, reconfiguration of basement level including increased storage areas and deletion of one parking space

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

 

Introduction:

 

The subject application involves a Section 96(2) modification of the approved development by providing an additional storey containing the living areas to a three bedroom dwelling, reconfiguration of basement level including increased storage areas and deletion of one parking space

 

The application was recommended for refusal and reported to the Planning Committee meeting on the 9 August 2016. At the meeting, it was resolved:

 

“(Andrews/Seng) that the application be deferred to provide an opportunity for the amended plans to be assessed”.

 

Key Issues

 

In accordance with the Planning Committee Report to the subject application prepared by Council officers, the subject application was recommended refusal 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.

 

With reference to the reason of refusal no. 7, Council identified that the development application was insufficient in information to allow for a proper assessment of the development application. The submitted plans received by Council on the 31 May 2016 did not include a full southern and western elevation or section plans submitted as part of the application. A full set of the amended plans has been received on the 24 August 2016 which reflects a full set of details to the previously submitted plans on the 31 May 2016.

 

Subsequently, this deferral relates to the following plans and relevant supporting documentation: 

 

 

 

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

S96 01_01 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 01_02 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 01_03 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 02_01 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

CC 03_01 (Issue A)

Urban Future

14 July 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 03_02 (Issue B)

Urban Future

11 May 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 03_03 (Issue B)

Urban Future

11 May 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 03_05 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 03_06 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 04_01 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 04_02 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 04_03 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 04_04 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 05_01 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 05_02 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 06_01 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

S96 07_01 (Issue D)

Urban Future

15 August 2016

24 August 2016 

 

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 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 47.1sqm, a total floor area of 500.7sqm and an FSR of 0.993:1. The departure will result in a variation from the maximum FSR requirements and is unacceptable breach to the maximum FSR requirements of the RLEP2012. The variation exceeds the maximum permissible floor space ratio by more than 10% and contributes to an additional storey which is excessive in visual bulk and scale from the existing streetscape.

 

The non-compliance to the floor space will result in non-compliance to the maximum building height of the RLEP2012 and the external wall height requirement of the RDCP2013. The controls prescribe a maximum building height of 12 metres and 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 maximum building height of 12.925m and an external wall height of 12.625m. The applicant’s 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. The proposed modiciation 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, whilst consist of a four storey built form, does 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 subject premises 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.

 

The overall design scheme is unacceptable and will detract from the appearance of the building within the existing streetscape. The distribution of the additional floor area focused on the uphill side of the site does not provide any strategic merit and results in a lopsided development with the addition located on one half of the development. The significant side setbacks and increased building separation at the new upper level addition aims to circumvent the amenity impacts from the non-complaint floor area, however is at the cost of the aesthetics resulting from an asymmetrical building envelope. The development will be visible from the Brook and Oberon Street visual catchment areas and does not positively contribute to an appropriate design outcome.

 

More recently, there is adequate case law by the Land and Environment Court which has provided greater clarity on the constitution of ‘substantially the same development’. In Hercules Street Developments Pty. Ltd. v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC1378, the courts contend that substantial weighting should be given on the concessions that were made to the original development application that were being assessed and whether the subject section 96 modifications derogate from its qualification as being substantially the same development. With respect to the original development application, it should be noted that the original proposal within DA/287/2015 proposed a full third floor level addition. Council’s planning officers provided written advice to the applicant which advised that:

 

Floor Space Ratio – Consistent with the Pre DA advice, notwithstanding the DRP comments and taking due account of the Clause 4.6 objection lodged with the application, 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 third level was ultimately removed as part of subsequent amended plans which subsequently achieved full compliance with the prescribed FSR requirements at 0.9:1 as per the RLEP2012. The subject section 96 application seeks to reinstate this third floor level which is contrary to the concessions that Council granted the applicant as part of Council’s request for additional information. Therefore there is reasonable doubt with respect to Hercules Street Developments Pty. Ltd. v Ashfield Council [2015] NSWLEC 1378 in that the proposed development cannot be considered as substantially the same development.

 

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.

 

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 10% above the maximum permissible floor space ratio 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 commensurate 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 Heights and 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 modifications will result in a development that will 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

12.925 metres

500.7sqm (0.993:1) 

Maximum permissible

12 metres

0.9:1 FSR

Exceeding LEP control

7.7% (925mm)

10.3% (sqm)

 

In accordance with the height of buildings map, the subject site has a maximum building height of 12 metres. The submitted statement of environmental effects identifies that the proposal will result in a building height that is within the 12 metre height limit and 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 12.925 metres (7.7% 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 applicant’s calculation of the height of building appears to be taken from finished floor level of the existing dwelling house at RL58.34. However, the subject site is located on a significant slope which falls away from north to south and from north to west, given the north-eastern most corner of the site is located on a high point. The existing dwelling is shown to be elevated above the ground level (existing) to the known spot levels around the dwelling house. When interpolating the spot points with a fall from north to west (across the site frontage) and a fall from north to south (across the site depth), the proposed development will result in a height of building at 12.925m, as measured from the southern portion of the upper level addition. The interpolated level comprises from the south-western corner of the built form is approximately RL56.32. The height of the ridge is measured at RL69.245 results in a building height at that particular point of 12.925m 

 

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 proposed 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 and results in a lopsided development in which the building bulk is concentrated on the uphill side of the allotment. Whilst the design outcome results in an increased front setback at 3.9 metres (as measured from the front deck) and side setback from the eastern and western boundaries at 3.6 metres and 5.115 metres, respectively 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 of the existing 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 is incompatible 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 overall 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.  

 

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 12.625 metres will result in a significant variation from Council’s controls by 20%. The non-compliance to the external wall height is a direct result of a non-compliance floor space and the breach to both planning provisions represents an unacceptable design outcome that attributes to a disregard to the Council’s planning controls. The significant breach to the external wall of the building with a main ridge height that extends to an RL69.795 dwarfs the flat building to the west with an RL64.03 and to the south with an RL60.92.

 

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. A compliant building envelope would represent a stronger transition to the neighbouring buildings and an improved relationship with respect to the sloping nature of the site which falls away towards the west. The perceivable bulk and scale of the building does not establish an appropriate design outcome and is not commensurate 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 are not supported in its current form.

 

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

 

In considering the amended plans that were submitted to Council received on the 31 May 2016, Council maintains its original position and recommends that the subject section 96 modifications be refused development consent. 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, building heights and external wall heights. The non-compliances contribute to an overdevelopment of the site and are not supported.

 

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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

202 Oberon Street, COOGEE (DA 287 2015 A) - PCM Report 9 August, 2016

 

 

 

 


202 Oberon Street, COOGEE (DA 287 2015 A) - PCM Report 9 August, 2016

Attachment 1

 

 

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 Council 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                                                                                                       11 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D80/16

 

Subject:                    4-18 Doncaster Avenue, KENSINGTON (DA/931/2015)

Folder No:                DA/931/2015

Author:                     Willana Associates, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of existing dwellings at numbers 4-8, 14 and 16 Doncaster Avenue and construction of new three storey residential flat building comprising of 48 dwellings, retention and refurbishment of existing terraces at numbers 10 and 12 Doncaster Avenue and basement parking for 71 vehicles (Heritage Item and Heritage Conservation Area).

Ward:                        West Ward

Applicant:                Mr N Roumanous

Owner:                     Actium Properties Pty Ltd & Bolted Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=59a33c4a-ab50-4b7f-a33b-6aab32f77d37&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development application has been subject to an assessment by an external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as the proposal is greater than $2 million.

 

The subject development application is ‘Integrated Development’ for the purpose of Section 91 of the EPAA, 1979.  An activity approval is required under Section 91 of the Water Management Act 2000.  The general terms of approval have been issued by Department of Primary Industries (Water), being the relevant approval body.

 

Proposal

 

It is proposed to:

 

§  Demolish the existing dwelling houses and associated structures on 4-16 Doncaster Avenue

§  Remove all on site trees, except for a large tree located at the front northwest corner.

§  Remove all existing vehicular crossings and provide a new crossing.

§  Remove three on-street planter boxes and one street tree.

§  Undertake earthworks primarily comprising excavation to provide a basement car parking level

§  Construct a residential flat building development with 25 one-bedroom units, 20 two-bedroom units and 5 three-bedroom units (total of 50 units inclusive of the existing terraces at 10 and 12 Doncaster Ave).  The rear of the existing terraces at numbers 10 and 12 Doncaster Avenue will be demolished.  The retained sections will be refurbished to provide 2 x 2 bedroom units.  A minor rear extension is proposed to each terrace.

The development will generally consist of five (5) main building modules (in addition to the existing semi-detached terraces) that will be connected to each other via pedestrian pathways.

§  Construct single-level basement car park consisting of 71 car spaces (i.e. 57 resident spaces, 13 visitor spaces and one service bay).

§  Establish new on-site landscaping and site works, including new boundary fencing.  Fencing along the northern side and rear boundary will be removed and replaced with an approximate 2.5m high brick and concrete planter.  Timber fencing along the southern side boundary will be replaced with new timber fencing.

§  Install new storm water infrastructure.  All roof and surface water will be directed to an on-site detention tank at the sites rear. 

 

Site

 

The subject site, 4-18 Doncaster Ave, Kensington, is located on the eastern side of Doncaster Ave, near the intersection of Doncaster Ave and Alison Road (i.e. approximately 100m to the south).  It comprises of the lots, uses and buildings, as listed in the table below. 

 

The site has an area total of 4276sqm, as indicated on the submitted survey dated (Sheet 1 of 3 Sheets) prepared by Dunlop Thorpe & Co.  It has a 106.375m frontage to Doncaster Ave, 106.375m rear boundary, 40.235m side boundary to the north and 40.17m side boundary to the south. 

 

The rear (eastern) and northern side boundaries abut a portion of Randwick Racecourse which is currently being subject to works relating to the construction of the Light Rail stabling and maintenance yard.  The land will be used to park Light Rail carriages and undertake maintenance activities such as washing and minor repairs.

 

Address

Lot Details

Buildings / Use

 

Lot 2 Sec 30 DP 5549

No buildings except for a minor structure at the rear of the site.

 

Trees generally concentrated at front northwest and rear northeast corners.

4 Doncaster Ave

Lot 3 Sec 30 DP5549

Lot 1 DP 1094702

 

Single storey brick dwelling house with a side verandah and minor structure within front building line setback.

 

Most trees are concentrated at the front corners.

 

Lot 1 DP981704

Minor strip of land containing laneway access.

 

Lot 1 DP 974821

Small offcut located at the rear of the subject site.

10 Doncaster Ave

Lot 1 DP 1033442

Part 1 / part 2 storey semi-detached dwelling.

Driveway access is located to the northern side. Trees are limited to the rear northeast side and within the front building line setback.

12 Doncaster Ave

Lot 51 DP 2905

Part 1 / part 2 storey semi-detached dwelling. 

Driveway access is located to the southern side. Trees are concentrated along the southern side.

14 Doncaster Ave

Lot 52A DP 400051

Single storey brick semi-detached cottage.

16 Doncaster Ave

Lot 52B DP 400051

Single storey brick semi-detached cottage. Trees are located within the rear southeast corner.

18 Doncaster Ave

Lot 53 DP 2905

This lot consists of lawn with a bitumen driveway leading up to the former Randwick Racecourse land.  There is chain wire fencing along the western and eastern sides.

 

The dwellings on 10 and 12 Doncaster Ave are listed as local heritage items under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012).  They are a pair of terraces which are almost centrally located on the subject site. 

 

The front, two storey section of each terrace is proposed to be retained, whilst the rear built forms are proposed to be demolished.  The subject site forms part of the Racecourse C13 heritage conservation area as identified under RLEP 2012.

 

The site is generally flat and subject to flood hazard.  Its highest levels are located to the northern side of the site (approximately RL 28.6), whereas its lowest levels are general located to the southwest end behind the existing semi-detached cottages  at 14 and 16 Doncaster Ave (approximately RL 27.7).  Perimeter fencing around the subject site mostly comprises timber and blockwork.

 

The submitted survey plan indicates that there are eight (8) planter boxes (two of which do not contain any trees) and five (5) vehicular crossings that extend along the footpath frontage of the site.  Five (5) of the planter boxes with trees will be retained.  The remaining planter boxes and a tree will be removed.  All existing vehicular crossings will be removed.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·     Unit 3/15 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington (x3)

·     20 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

·     22 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

·     24 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

·     26 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

·     32 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

·     Unknown address

·     Member of the NSW Legislative Council

 

Table 2 | Objectors Issues

 

Issue

Comment

Objector 1 | 32 Doncaster Avenue

Stormwater Infrastructure

·         The proposed stormwater infrastructure on the southern side of the Site is situated within close proximity to the neighbouring property (20 Doncaster Avenue).

 

·         Further digging, in addition to the construction of the Light Rail Stabling Yard (to the east of the Site), will lead to excessive disturbance of the ground stability damaging the footing of the properties to the south of the Site.

 

 

Parking

·         The current lack of parking for the existing residents of Doncaster Avenue will worsen.  With the continued payment of annual parking permits and the lack of parking forces the residents to park great lengths away from their properties. 

·         With the proposed Light Rail, parking spaces are being removed making it harder to find parking.  Will these spaces be relocated or will they just be removed?

·         In addition, what additional measure will be taken to ensure that the occupying residential of the proposal will ensure that they park in their allocated parking space?

·         A rear lane access to the adjoining properties along the eastern side of Doncaster Road is suggested.

 

 

 

 

 

Overshadowing

·         The shadow diagrams show that the construction of the proposal will significantly reduce the amount of sunlight into 20 Doncaster Avenue during summer and winter.

·         To reduce the overshadowing impact, it is suggested that the proposed RFB on the south boundary be setback further to increase the solar access to the neighbouring property.

 

 

 

The submitted stormwater drainage plans have not been approved as part of the development consent.  The Development Engineer has included a number of conditions that relate to drainage design requirements. The applicant is required to submit detailed drainage plans for approval prior to the issuing of a construction certificate.

 

A condition is recommended to require a dilapidation report for all neighbouring properties within the zone of influence.

 

 

 

The proposed development complies with the numerical car parking requirements as indicated in the accompanying compliance report.

 

 

 

 

 

The Light Rail operation aims to improve public transport services into the CBD and seeks to reduce the reliance on vehicles.  Regardless the issue of loss of car parking resulting from the Light Rail development would have been a matter considered at the time of the assessment of that development.  The loss does not result from the proposed development being assessed here.

 

Unfortunately there is no mechanism to ensure that occupants will always utilise their designated parking spaces. Council can only ensure that adequate parking spaces are provided through the generation and demand created by the development. The proposal complies with Council’s minimum car parking requirements.

 

 

As the proposal complies with the RLEP 2012 building height standard and the ADG building separation control, any overshadowing of 20 Doncaster Avenue is considered inevitable and acceptable.

 

A generous setback (more than the minimum) is proposed to minimise the overshadowing impact to the south. (See Key Issues Section)

 

Objector 2 | 26 Doncaster Avenue

Maximum Height

·         The maximum allowable height limit for the proposed development is 10.5m and the proposal is building to a 12m height.

 

Dilapidation Report

·      The objector would like to gain an understanding of their rights if there is damage, in the form of soil erosion and degradation, to their property at 26 Doncaster Avenue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parking

·         A rear lane access to the adjoining properties along the eastern side of Doncaster Road is suggested.

 

·         Due to the light rail construction, an acoustic wall is being constructed for the stabling yard.  There is a 6m wide area that may be wide enough to create a rear lane access via Ascot Street.

 

Noise and Air Pollution

·         The current proposal for 4-18 Doncaster Road does not provide any details regarding the possible asbestos hazards.  This is requested as the existing dwellings on the Site, which are to be demolished, may contain asbestos. 

 

·         With the proposed development at 4-12 Doncaster Avenue and the construction of the Light Rail, the residents will be affected with prolonging dust settlements, additional noise and ground vibrations.

 

Elevations

·         The documents and plans that are available to the public on the Randwick Council website do not provide an elevation of the southern side of the property.  The southern side of the proposal is important to the neighbours to the south of the Site.

 

Flood Planning

·         With the proposed light rail being built above ground level, what will developer of 4-18 Doncaster Avenue have in place to ensure that rainwater and runoff will not affect the properties to the south?

 

·         A request for the examination and modelling of flood mitigation impacts is made by the neighbour to the south of the Site, which is to be presented in a report that is available to the public.

 

·        

 

 

The maximum allowable building height prescribed by the RLEP 2012 is 12m. The proposed development is within the 12m height limit.

 

 

Council’s standard conditions will ensure the following concerns are specifically addressed:

 

-   A dilapidation report will be required to be prepared at the developers cost and before the commencement of works.  It will relate to all neighbouring properties within the zone of influence.

 

-   The report will be finalised and submitted to the principal certifying authority prior to the commencement of any works. 

 

The traffic and parking impacts of the proposal are considered acceptable.  They have been reviewed by Council’s Development engineer and Roads and Maritime Services. The areas between the subject development and acoustic wall are not under the control of Council or the applicant. As such, this must be pursued with transport for NSW as the owners of the land.

 

 

Appropriate conditions will be included in consent regarding the removal and handling of any asbestos.  Asbestos treatment details will be included in the Demolition Work Plan as required by the standard conditions.

 

 

Dust, noise and vibration impacts will be addressed in a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan.  A condition is recommended to require the submission of a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan prior to the commencement of works.

 

 

There are southern elevation plans of the proposal on the DA file.  These plans were available for viewing by the public during the notification period. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Development Engineer has not recommended approval of the submitted drainage plans but has recommended a number of conditions relating to drainage design requirements.  These conditions are included as part of the recommended development consent conditions.  Any relevant flood mitigation relating to the development and stormwater drainage scheme will be delivered in the final drainage design subject Council’s recommendation conditions.

 .

Objector 3 | 24 Doncaster Avenue

Stormwater Infrastructure

·         The proposed stormwater infrastructure on the southern side of the Site is situated within close proximity to the neighbouring property (20 Doncaster Avenue).

 

·         Further digging will lead to excessive disturbance of the ground stability damaging the footing of the properties to the south of the Site.

 

Removal of Trees

·         Removal of the mature trees on the Site, in addition to what has been removed as a result of the proposed light rail project, is excessive.

 

·         An alteration to the construction plan is suggested to preserve the existing mature trees as much as possible.

 

Overshadowing

·         The shadow diagrams show that the construction of the proposal will significantly reduce the amount of sunlight into 20 Doncaster Avenue during summer and winter.

 

·         To reduce the overshadowing impact, it is suggested that the proposed be RFB on the south boundary be setback further to increase the solar access to the neighbouring property.

 

·        

 

 

These matters have been addressed above.  The necessary stormwater plans / documents will be required to be submitted prior to the issue of a construction certificate.  Dilapidation reports will be required to be submitted prior to the commencement of works.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s landscape officer has raised no objection to the removal of most of the trees on the site. A mature Sydney Blue gum will be retained and protected during construction as well as Peppercorn Street trees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues Section.

 

 

 

Objector 5 | 20 Doncaster Avenue

Dilapidation Report

·      A dilapidation report on the current condition of 20 Doncaster Avenue is requested by the owner/occupier due to concerns of the damages that might occur during construction, excavation and demolition.

 

 

·      The objector would like to gain an understanding of their rights if there is damage to their property at 20 Doncaster Avenue as it is a single storey terrace that dates back to the 1900’s and the footings are old and fragile.

 

 

Overshadowing and Solar Access

·          The shadow diagrams show that the new development will impose significant overshadowing to 20 Doncaster Avenue as this property is built to the southern boundary and relies on the northern sun to provide adequate solar access through the northern windows on the side of the house.

 

·          The solar access gained from the northern aspect, which is the reason the owners of 20 Doncaster Avenue bought the property, will be impacted by the proposed development at 4-18 Doncaster Road and therefore the owners also have concerns that their property value will decrease.

 

·          The maximum external wall height is currently 10.5m on the existing properties adjoining 20 Doncaster Avenue to the north.  With the proposal being increased to have a maximum wall height of 12m, the objectors reiterate that this will impact their solar access and will increase the current overshadowing.

 

Stormwater Infrastructure

·         The proposed stormwater infrastructure on the southern side of the Site is situated within close proximity to 20 Doncaster Avenue.

 

·         Further digging will lead to excessive disturbance of the ground stability damaging the footing of the properties to the south of the Site.

 

 

Maximum External Wall Height

·         What is the maximum external wall height of the proposal at 4-18 Doncaster Avenue?

 

Overlooking and Privacy

·         Will there be any windows on the southern elevation of the proposed development that will cause overlooking and privacy implications to 20 Doncaster Avenue?

 

 

 

Noise and Air Pollution

·         The existing dwellings on the Site, which are to be demolished, may contain asbestos.  What measures will be taken in preventing the air pollution? 

 

·         In addition, the demolition will be taking place on the northern boundary of 20 Doncaster Avenue, and with the only windows being along the northern side, the proposal will have an impact through increased noise and air pollution.

 

 

 

The recommended dilapidation conditions will require investigation of the state of property fences and retaining walls within the zone of influence of the construction site.  The zone is determined by the consultant engineer.

 

The developer will be required to comply with the conditions of development consent in relation to excavation impacts on neighbouring properties.  In particular compliance with the conditions listed in the attached compliance report will provide safeguards to adjoining properties.

 

 

As the proposal complies with the RLEP 2012 building height standard and complies with the RDCP 2013 side setback control, any overshadowing of 20 Doncaster Avenue is considered acceptable. Notwithstanding the variation to the wall height control. (See Key Issues Section).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This matter has been addressed above.

 

 

 

 

Conditions requiring safely engineered excavation and a Dilapidation Report of neighbouring properties will address these concerns.

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues Section.

 

 

 

 

A Condition is recommended to require the windows on the southern elevation of Levels 1 and 2 of Unit 0.17 to be fixed obscure glazing in order to minimise privacy impacts on 20 Doncaster Avenue.

 

The matter of asbestos is addressed above.  Conditions are recommended to control and

 

A Construction Management Plan will be prepared and will address noise and air pollution.

 

Objector 6 | 3/15 Doncaster Avenue

Maximum Height

·         The maximum allowable height limit for the proposed development is 10.5m and the proposal is building to a 12m height.

 

Future Character

·         With the addition of the light rail and the three storey RFB at 4-18 Doncaster Avenue, this area has the potential to be hard and dark, which will mirror an industrial area.

 

·         In order to ensure that the future character of the area remains similar to the existing, an open and low rise area where solar access is enjoyed from the open space areas and the gardens. 

 

Flood Planning

·         Due to the land being subject to flooding, it is necessary to ensure that the development will not lead to damaging channelling of flood waters.

 

 

 

Traffic Impact

·         The increase in traffic will need to be examined and a traffic report is required to ensure the safety and congestion issues are addressed.

 

 

 

The maximum allowable building height prescribed by the RLEP 2012 is 12m. (See Key Issues Section).

 

 

 

The proposal complies with the objectives of Council’s building envelope controls, contains the required amount of landscaping. The proposal is therefore considered to be an appropriate development of the site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Council’s Development Engineer has not recommended approval of the submitted drainage plans but has recommended a number of conditions relating to drainage design requirements. These conditions will address issues of flooding.

 

 

Council’s Development Engineer has recommended a passing area next to the driveway but has raised no other concerns regarding traffic.

 

Key Issues

 

Heritage Conservation

The subject site forms part of the Racecourse C13 heritage conservation area as identified under RLEP 2012. Council’s Heritage Officer in their advice outlined the character of the streetscape and subject site. “The northern part of the site is occupied by no.4 Doncaster Avenue, a single storey Arts and Crafts style dwelling, screened from the street by garden plantings and a high brick wall.  The centre part of the site is occupied by nos.10 – 12 Doncaster Avenue, a two storey semi-detached pair, listed as a heritage item.  The southern part of the site is occupied by nos.14 – 16 Doncaster Avenue, a single storey Federation style semi-detached pair.  Gate 20 between no.4 and nos.10 – 12, and Gate 19 to the south provide access to the Racecourse site.”

 

The dwellings on 10 and 12 Doncaster Ave are listed as local heritage items under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012).  They are a pair of terraces which are almost centrally located on the subject site.  The front, main, two storey section of each terrace is proposed to be retained, whereas the rear built forms are proposed to be demolished.  A minor new extension is proposed at the rear of each dwelling. The proposed rear addition to these dwellings has been sympathetically designed to retain the integrity of the items and retain their intrinsic design. Council’s Heritage Officer in the referral confirmed that “Amended plans have avoided the removal of original walls at ground floor level and provision of new partitions at first floor level.  Amended plans will better retain the integrity of original spaces and avoid impact on internal detailing including timberwork and plasterwork.” 

 

In respect to the demolition of No.4, 14-16 Doncaster Avenue, the Heritage Impact Statement that was submitted with the application noted that No.4 Doncaster Avenue was affected by structural and settlement damage and flood risk issues and its contribution to the conservation area was limited due its location, towards the edge of the area justified its demolition. No.14-16 Doncaster Avenue have been modified by the removal of their front windows and due to the lack of original façade detailing are not considered to be intact examples of this type of architectural style and their contribution to the streetscape value is not significant. On this basis Council’s Heritage Officer raises no objection to their removal.

 

In terms of the new built form within the conservation area the scale, bulk and form of the development is generally consistent with the future desired character for the area. There is scope to improve the scale of the development and improve the relationship of the new buildings to their surroundings. A condition is imposed which seeks to set back the rear third level so that it would read more as an attic volume within a two storey scale creating a more recessed and less dominating roof form. Other standard conditions are included which include the preparation of an archival recording and also since the site adjoins the Stabling yards for the CBD and South East Light Rail Project where recent archaeological discoveries were made, the recommendation includes appropriate conditions require archeological and aboriginal assessments to be carried out.

 

Height/bulk/scale

 

Originally the proposed development exceeded the maximum RLEP 2012 height control of 12m. The amended plans reduced the height of the building in order for it to comply.

 

External wall heights on all elevations exceed the 10.5m height control in the RDCP 2013. Only the southern elevation (maximum wall external wall height 11.25m) has a direct interface with residential neighbours. The amenity impacts on those neighbours are satisfactory due to the modest non-compliance (0.75m); the setback of the proposed development from the southern boundary (6.42m); and the comparatively modest building footprint of the proposal on the southern side of the site.

 

The 2-3 storey scale of the development is consistent with development in the streetscape and immediate locality.

 

The new townhouses to the south of No.10 and 12 Doncaster Avenue are modern and reflect a terrace style form and arrangement which will be sympathetic in design and massing to the two retained heritage items and the development to the north of No’s 10 and 12 is more of a residential flat building. The diversity in the design of the development and creation of three distinct parts to the visual appearance of the development breaks up the bulk and also creates variety and interest to the streetscape.

 

Subject to the design changes suggested by Council’s Heritage Officer to Level 2 of the two south-western modules, the development is considered to be in keeping with the scale and form of existing buildings in the streetscape and will be a contemporary and respectful addition to the street. The proposal has been designed to comply with the height and floor space control which assists in regulating the building envelope and creating the appropriate built form on the site.

 

Solar access and privacy of neighbours

 

Due to the site location, the only residential property with direct interface with the proposed development is the detached dwelling house to the south at 20 Doncaster Avenue. The privacy of that property will be preserved by a condition requiring that all windows on Levels 1 and 2 of the southern elevation of the proposed development be fixed, obscure glazing.

 

The overshadowing of the property at 20 Doncaster Avenue will be satisfactory. As stated above, while the external wall height of the southern elevation partially exceeds the maximum in the RDCP 2013 by 0.75m, this is considered reasonable for three reasons: the non-compliance is modest (0.75m); the setback of the proposed development from the southern boundary (6.42m) slightly exceeds the minimum in the Apartment Design Guide; and the building footprint of the proposal on the southern side of the site is comparatively modest. The building envelope has been arranged into modules with gaps between, rather than one large building with no gaps. This gap allows for solar access to 20 Doncaster Avenue.

 

The shadow diagrams indicate that the rear yard of 20 Doncaster Avenue will receive significant sunlight at various times between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. Furthermore, the shadow diagrams also indicate that the proposed south-western building module (maximum external wall height 10.71m) overshadows north facing windows of the dwelling house at 20 Doncaster Avenue between 9am and 3pm on 21 June. This indicates that a fully compliant external wall of 10.5m height would also overshadow those north facing windows. The overshadowing of north facing windows of 20 Doncaster Avenue resulting from the proposal is therefore no greater than a fully compliant scheme and is considered reasonable.

 

Privacy for Residents

 

The proposal includes interface between some apartment windows and communal open spaces and circulation spaces. This interface could result in adverse privacy impacts for residents of the relevant apartments. Privacy measures are therefore proposed for those windows and, in some instances, amendment to the communal open spaces. Implementation of those privacy measures will assist to ensure adequate privacy for residents of the proposed development.

 

Integrated Development

 

Parts of the development intercept or extract groundwater and also required to be authorised under the Water Management Act 2000. The proposed development is deemed to be an aquifer interference activity requiring an authorisation under the water management legislation. The development is therefore catergorised as Integrated.

 

The application was referred to the Department of Primary Industries (Water) who raised no objection to the proposed development however a number of conditions have been imposed by the Department in relation to obtaining relevant documentation and conducting ground water quality testing to ensure that ground water and dewatering processes are appropriately designed and managed in accordance with the Department’s requirements and guidelines. Also, it ensures that the method of stormwater drainage that is to be adopted is appropriate for this site.

 

Flooding and stormwater

 

The subject site is located within a designated flood prone area. The proposed development requires alterations to existing drainage infrastructure located within the development site. Council’s records show one of the pipelines affected as being under Sydney Water care and control and one of the pipelines (an existing Tonkin) as being under Council’s car and control. The applicant has indicated that they believe both pipelines are under Sydney Water’s care and control. Conditions relating to the relocation of the affected pipelines have been included within this report to address and resolve this issue.

 

The proposed drainage arrangement which forms part of the application is not supported by Council’s Engineer and it is advised these drainage plans are not to be approved as part of this application. Appropriate conditions are included as part of this report which require any new drainage design to comply with Council’s performance requirements.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development has been designed to comply with the main statutory planning controls and the proposed design and form of the development is not likely to create any adverse environmental or amenity impacts if managed appropriately. There are many conditions included to ensure the earthworks and drainage and stormwater methods that are adopted are in accordance with Council’s requirements and standards. A dilapidation report and a construction management plan should ensure that the construction and excavation processes are well managed and controlled.

 

The proposed residential flat building is permissible in the zone and satisfies the objectives of the zone. It also satisfies most of the SEPP 65, Apartment Design Guidelines for medium density development and creates an attractive, contemporary built form. The design incorporates good landscaping that creates a buffer and assists in screening the built form.

 

The proposal is considered to be well designed and will represent a positive and generally desirable development in the immediate locality.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 931/2015 for demolition of existing dwellings at No. 4-8, 14 and 16 Doncaster Avenue and construction of a new residential flat building development comprising of 48 dwellings, retention and refurbishment of existing terraces at No. 10 and 12 Doncaster Avenue and basement car parking for 71 vehicles (Heritage Item and Heritage Conservation Area) at No.4-8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 Doncaster Avenue 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

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)   The following windows shall be treated with one of the following privacy measures: minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level; fixed, obscure glazing to a height of 1.6m; or fixed, horizontal external privacy louvres-

 

•     study window on southern elevation of Unit 0.1,

•     study window on southern elevation of Unit 0.9,

•     bedroom windows on the northern elevation of the ground floor of Unit 0.12,

•     windows on the northern and southern elevations of the ground floor of Units 0.18, 0.19 and 0.20,

•     bathroom windows in Unit 0.5, 1.5, 1.8, 2.5, 2.8

•     living room windows on southern elevation of Units 1.9 and 2.9

 

b)   The following windows shall be highlight windows with a minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level:

 

•       bedroom windows on the northern elevation of Unit 0.5,

 

c)   The following windows should be fixed and consist of glass blocks for privacy and security:

 

·     West elevation windows of Unit 0.4.

 

d)   To avoid privacy, maintenance and security issues the following landscaped areas shall be fenced and allocated to the respective units:

 

·      Common landscaped area along the western and northern sides of Unit 0.10.

·      Common landscaped area along the southern and western sides of Unit 0.11.

 

In both cases side access should be provided to the allocated landscaped areas. 

 

e)   The windows on the southern elevation of Levels 1 and 2 of Unit 0.17 and the southern elevation of Levels 1 and 2 of Unit 1.16 are to be minimum sill height of 1.6m above floor level; fixed, obscure glazing to a height of 1.6m; or fixed, horizontal external privacy louvres in order to minimise privacy impacts on 20 Doncaster Avenue.

 

f)    The allocation of visitor and resident car spaces must meet the minimum requirement and each adaptable unit is to be allocated at least one adaptable resident space.

 

g)   Individual storage must be provided to each dwelling in accordance with the rates set out in the Apartment Design Guide.

 

h)   No bin storage is to be located in the front setback of the development.

 

i)    Retractable or demountable clothes lines are to be provided in the private open space of each dwelling unit.

 

j)    Details of the front fences including elevations must be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment for approval prior to issuing of a construction certificate. The proposed fence must be generally in accordance with the relevant DCP criteria in terms of height and form.

 

Heritage Management

3.        An archival recording and salvage plan must be undertaken prior to works commencing on the site.  The archival recording should specifically include the dwelling at no.4-8 Doncaster Avenue, the rear wings and outbuildings to be demolished at nos.10-12 Doncaster Avenue, and the semi-detached pair at nos.14-16 Doncaster Avenue.  The recording should also include context photographs of the existing site as viewed from the street.  The archival recording shall be prepared and 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.  This recording shall be in accordance with the NSW Heritage Office 2006 Guidelines for Photographic Recording of Heritage Items using Film or Digital Capture.  Two copies of the endorsed archival recording shall be presented to Council, one of which shall be placed in the Local History Collection of Randwick City Library. 

 

4.        The conservation approach and schedules of internal and external works detailed in the Schedule of Conservation Works prepared by GBA Heritage and dated May 2016, are to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed development.  An architect suitably qualified and experienced in heritage conservation shall be engaged to oversee the implementation to ensure the use of technically sound and appropriate techniques.  All work shall be carried out in accordance with the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter and to the satisfaction of the Director City Planning. 

 

5.        The rear (eastern) 6.2m of Level 2 of the two south-western modules (corresponding to that part of Level 2 with a flat roof)  is to be  setback on the northern and southern sides by a minimum of 0.15m from the line of the lower Levels and a change of wall finish introduced. Level 2 of each module is to read as an attic within a two storey building. Amended drawings shall be prepared and 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.        The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces to the building are to be compatible with the existing heritage items and surrounding buildings in the heritage conservation area and consistent with the architectural style of the building.  Further documentation, including elevations detailing the proposed colours, materials and textures (ie- a schedule and brochure/s or sample board) are to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director City Planning, in accordance with Section 80A (2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. 

 

Aboriginal Archaeology

7.        The subject site is adjacent to the Stabling Yards for the CBD and South East Light Rail Project where a significant aboriginal archaeological discovery has recently been made.  An Aboriginal Archaeological investigation is to be carried out for the site to determine if any Aboriginal objects (as defined by the National Parks & Wildlife Act 1974) are likely to be present.  This Preliminary Assessment of Aboriginal Archaeology is to be 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. 

 

8.        The La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council should be invited to monitor topsoil stripping and excavation works (including bulk excavation, remediation, cut and fill and excavation for services) on the development site, to ensure any Aboriginal sites or objects buried beneath fills are identified and appropriately managed. 

 

9.        If any Aboriginal sites or objects are found during site construction work, excavation should cease immediately in that area.  The La Perouse Aboriginal Land Council should be notified and advice sought before work can recommence.  It is an offence under Section 90 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to disturb, deface or destroy an Aboriginal site or object without prior consent of the Director General of DECC. 

 

Historical Archaeology

10.      No.18 Doncaster Avenue was formerly occupied by a 1914 single storey dwelling which was demolished after 1943 to allow for additional vehicular access to the Racecourse site.  In the event that historical archaeological remains or deposits on this site are exposed during the works, the excavation works shall cease immediately and an evaluation of their potential extent and significance should be undertaken and the Heritage Council of NSW be notified under the requirements of the Heritage Act. 

 

Vehicle passing area

11.      The application must be modified to incorporate a vehicle passing area within the first 10-12 metres of the internal driveway. This applicant must engage a suitable qualified traffic engineer to design the passing area. Away from the passing bay the internal driveway must be a minimum of 3.6 metres wide (with 2 x 300mm kerbs) in general accordance with AS 2890.1-2004.The proposed bin storage area must be redesigned to accommodate the passing area. All internal circulation ramps must be suitably designed for two (2) way movements. The applicant must liaise with Council’s Development Engineer Coordinator to obtain Council’s requirements for the passing bay and the internal driveway in general.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 4-18 Doncaster Avenue, Kensington

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                       11 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D81/16

 

Subject:                    25 Bay Parade, Malabar (DA/561/2012/A)

Folder No:                DA/561/2012/A

Author:                     Tuong-Vi Doan, Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification of the approved development by altering the internal layout of the rear outbuilding including pergola above patio area and increase the height of the outbuilding by 200mm. Original consent: Construction of new two storey dwelling including swimming pool and spa pools to side of dwelling, alterations to out buildings at rear, landscaping and associated works.

Ward:                        South Ward

Applicant:                MS H J Postle

Owner:                     MS H J Postle

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=51c817e7-6bfb-4c1f-b609-49a3f17dc11b&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Details of the Current Approval

 

Development consent was granted on 22 October 2013 for the alterations and additions and the refurbishment of the existing two storey dwelling. The proposal includes a new roof and a roof terrace area to the rear of the first floor extension, refurbishing the existing single storey rear studio and construction of an in-ground lap pool and spa to the north-western side of the boundary.

 

Details of the Proposed Modification

 

The subject application seeks to modify the approved development by altering the internal layout of the rear outbuilding including adding a pergola above patio area and increase the height of the outbuilding by 200mm in order to achieve the compliance with the Building Code of Australia. The works have been partially completed.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located within a foreshore scenic protection area and has extensive Pacific Ocean and Malabar headland views. It is located on the southern eastern side of Bay Parade and is presently occupied by an existing part single and two storey dwelling. To the rear of the site is a single storey outbuilding.  

 

The site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage width of 12.19m, a side boundary depth of 40.235m and has an overall site area of 486.8m². The site is generally flat with a slight cross fall of approximately 1m from the rear boundary to the Bay Parade Street frontage.

 

The locality is residential in nature and contains a mixture of a single and two storey dwelling houses and attached dual occupancy dwellings.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·     Unit 2/23 Bay Parade, Malabar

 

Issues

Comments

Condition 52 of the Development consent states:

Use of premises

The premises must only be used as a single residential dwelling and must not be used for dual or multi-occupancy purposes.

The objector was informed that the outbuilding was to be used as a granny flat.

The applicant has not proposed or indicated in their application the conversion of the studio to a granny flat (secondary dwelling). Condition 52 remains on the original development consent. Further proposed conditions require state that no kitchen facilities are to be installed and also state that the studio is not to be used as a separate dwelling.

Plans submitted could be misleading

The application contains sufficient information to allow for a proper and thorough assessment.

Parking provisions concerns. If a granny flat is approved, public on-street parking will be taken up.

The parking demand currently generated by the site has been calculated as two spaces when adopting the rates provided in Council’s DCP (for dwellings with 3 bedrooms or greater).  Currently, the subject site has 5 bedrooms with a studio at the rear and only one car parking space is provided on the site. However, the proposed alterations and additions will not result in an increase in the parking demand as the number of bedrooms will not be increased as part of this development.

 

Key Issues

 

Use of studio

As previously detailed, there is no proposal to use the studio as a secondary dwelling, Condition 52 of the original development consent limits the use of the premises for a single residential dwelling and this application does not propose to alter this condition. In addition, proposed Condition 58 states that the studio must not be used as a separate dwelling or domicile and Condition 59 states no cooking facilities are to be installed in the studio.

 

Impacts from extended patio and pergola

It is not anticipated that there will be any additional impacts on adjacent properties from the extension of the patio area given that it is at ground level. The pergola structure will not impact on the neighbours given the light-weight nature of the structure and adequate side setbacks of 1.7m on the north-eastern elevation and overall meets the DCP requirements of clause 3.3 for setbacks.

 

Increase in height of studio

Given the minor height increase it is not anticipated that there will be significant impacts on adjacent sites. There is a garage located on the adjacent site to the south-west immediately abutting the common boundary and the 200mm height increase will not result in appreciable impact.

 

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP)

 

Part B10 - Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The proposal is considered minor with mainly internal works and will 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 this clause as stipulated in the DCP.

 

Side setbacks of pergola

The proposed pergola above the patio is a light-weight structure that provides an adequate side setback of 1.7m on the north-eastern side and 1.4m on the south-western side. This achieves the required numerical controls for side setbacks for the pergola structure as stipulated in clause 3.3 for setbacks in the RDCP 2013.

 

 

 

 

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 altering the internal layout of the rear outbuilding 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 Submissions of this report for more information.

 

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

Submissions have been considered.

 

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

The site is zoned R2 – Low Density under the LEP and the proposal relates to the modification of the approved development to altering the internal layout of the rear outbuilding including pergola above patio area and increase the height of the outbuilding by 200mm. 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.

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 Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/561/2012/A of the approved development by  altering the internal layout of the rear outbuilding including pergola above patio area and increase the height of the outbuilding by 200mm, at 25 Bay Parade, Malabar, subject to the following conditions:

 

 

A.       Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

 

Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received

Da_007 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_008 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_009 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0010 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0011 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0012 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0013 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0014 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0015 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0016 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0017 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0026 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

Da_0027 Revision: H

ISA Designs – Alon Musael

Sent: 14/02/2013

18 February 2013

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received

472004S

11 March 2013

11 March 2013

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 ’A’ plans

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

1616-1

B.M. – Peter Carters & Associates

11/03/2016

1616-2

B.M. – Peter Carters & Associates

11/03/2016

1616-3

B.M. – Peter Carters & Associates

11/03/2016

 

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:

 

B.        Add Condition Nos. 58 & 59 to read:

 

58.      The detached studio must not be used as a separate dwelling/domicile.

 

59.      No cooking facilities are to be installed in the detached studio.

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                       11 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D82/16

 

Subject:              21 Meehan Street, MATRAVILLE (DA/863/2015)

Folder No:                DA/863/2015

Author:                     City Plan Services, Pty Ltd     

 

Proposal:                  Section 82A Review of Council's refusal of consent for demolition of existing dwelling, construction of part 2/part 3 storey attached dual occupancy with garages to front, swimming pools to rear. Amended plans include a reduction in floor area (variation to floor space ratio control). Original Proposal: Demolition of the existing dwelling, construction of part 2/part 3 storey attached dual occupancy with garages to front, swimming pools to rear and associated works.

Ward:                        South Ward

Applicant:                Mrs B Surbevski

Owner:                     B Surbevski & Sime Surbevski

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=8ed7ce43-604c-4353-bc30-adc7bce5b2ce&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as an adjoining property owner is a Randwick City Council employee. It was refused by Council at its meeting on 28 June, 2016.

Proposal

 

“Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of part 2/part 3 storey attached dual occupancy with garages to front, swimming pools to rear”.

 

Specifically, the DA proposed the following:-

 

·     Demolition of the existing single-storey dwelling;

·     Construction of part two/part three storey dual occupancy including basement;

·     Construction of one (1) swimming pool per unit; and

·     Associated earthworks & landscaping.

 

The ‘refused development’ has been amended in this Section 82A application as follows:

·     Reduced gross floor area/floor space ratio by removal of some internal floor space, including 1 bedroom from each dwelling.  The applicant calculates the floor space ratio of the building to be 0.55:1.

·     Increased depth of rear balconies

·     Added articulation along the side boundaries

·     Adjustable privacy screening to rear balconies

 

Background

 

On 9 February 2016, Council requested the applicant provide additional information in relation to tree removal, the driveway gradient, solar access, justification for the non-compliance with FSR development standard, potential privacy issues, gross floor area and landscape.

 

On 20 April 2016, the applicant submitted a response to Council’s additional information request. The only change to the proposal included a reduction to the gradient of the internal driveway to comply with Council maximum 7.15 per cent requirement, which resulted in the overall building height being increased by 200mm.

 

On 2016, Council refused the application for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of R2 – Low Density zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to the desired future character of the locality and the protection of residential amenity.

 

2.        The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 specified in Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

3.        The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of Building Design under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the form and massing does not respond to the topography of the site and the design lacks suitable articulation resulting in unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining dwellings in terms of visual amenity.

 

4.        The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height control under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

5.        The proposal does not satisfy the visual privacy requirements under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 because it would result in unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

On 29 July 2016, the applicant requested a S82A review of the refused DA. Amended plans were submitted.

 

After a preliminary assessment, City Plan Strategy and Development (CPSD) considered that the amended plans did not adequately address Council’s reasons for refusal. Principally this was because the amendments, whilst reducing the calculable gross floor area, did not identifiably reduce the bulk and scale of the building and its associated impacts.

 

CPSD wrote to the applicant on 7 September 2016 providing the opportunity to further amend the development as follows:

 

·     Further reduce the gross floor area of the proposed building. This needs to manifest itself in a reduction in the external building form and would be achieved by a reduction in the depth of building at the rear by 1.5m at "ground floor" level and 2 metres at "first floor" level (also incorporating a reduction in the depth of the balconies);

·     Reduce the height of privacy screening to the side of the balconies to around 1.6 – 1.8 metres;

·     Minimum 3-metre-wide movable full height privacy screens along the rear of each of the first floor balconies for added external privacy protection;

·     Accept a condition that the rear basement area is not to be enclosed; and

·     Updated BASIX report for the amended scheme.

 

The applicant responded on 20 September 2016 with the following amendments to the development:

 

·     Reduction in the height of the privacy screening to the side of the first floor balconies to 1.6m;

·     Provision of two (2) x 2.3m wide movable full height privacy screens along the rear of each of the first floor balconies; and

·     Updated BASIX scheme.

 

The amended plans submitted on 20 September 2016 show no change to the building envelope.  The applicant did not respond in relation to the imposition of a condition that the rear basement area is not be enclosed.

 

Site

 

 

Figure 1: Aerial view, site outlined in red and shaded in yellow (Source: Sixmaps NSW)

 

The site is legally described as Lot 23 in DP 245581 and is zoned R2 Low Density Residential pursuant to Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP). The site is surrounded by predominantly one and two storey residential development, and is within walking distance of shops, open spaces and public transport services.

 

The site has a moderate downward sloping topography to the rear of the site from Meehan St.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the amended plans (received on 29 July 2016) in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013). It is noted that since the plans received on 20 September 2016 were substantially unaltered, renotification was not considered necessary. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

·     19 Meehan Street, Matraville

·     1157 Anzac Parade, Matraville

 

The key concerns raised are summarised as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

19 Meehan Street

·     Failure to comply with objectives of the R2 zone

·     Failure to comply with FSR

·     Failure to comply with relevant objectives of building design in DCP 2013, leading to:

·     Loss of amenity for neighbouring residents

·     Excessive bulk and scale of proposed dwellings

·     Building envelope unresponsive to sloping topography

·     Failure to comply with maximum wall height

·     Failure to satisfy visual privacy requirements of DCP 2013

 

Given that the bulk and scale of the building remains largely unchanged from the proposal that was refused, these concerns are generally supported.

 

1157 Anzac Parade

·     Increase in balcony sizes creating noise and privacy concerns over objector’s backyard

·     Request a reduction in the size of the balconies

·     No detail on noise associated with pool equipment and air conditioning

·     Difficulty in monitoring potential usage of undercroft basement area for living purposes

·     Concern about build quality

·     Concern with asbestos removal during demolition

·     Need for geotechnical report for excavation for pools

·     More details of pool requested

 

 

The increased size of balconies compared to those in the refused application exacerbate the concerns raised in Council’s refusal and do not satisfactorily address the concerns raised in this submission.  See more discussion under the “key issues” heading of this report

 

Noise impacts may reasonably be addressed via conditions of consent

 

The use of the basement area is addressed under the “key issues” heading of this report

 

The build quality of the proposal is not considered to be of concern

 

A condition may be imposed in relation to appropriate asbestos removal

 

No details of the level and design of the pools have been supplied

 

Key Issues

 

Non-compliance with FSR control

 

The amended plans submitted with the S82A review application have reduced the floor space ratio (FSR) from 0.59:1 (or 0.69:1 by Council calculation) to 0.55:1.

 

In relation to the FSR calculation, CPSD accepts the applicant’s exclusion of the “basement area” gym/stores from the GFA calculation as appropriate on the basis that it is not enclosed at the rear.  The FSR of 0.55:1 is accepted as being correct in terms of the LEP definition.

 

The proposed variation is therefore summarised in the table below:

 

Clause

Required

Proposed

Compliance

Variation

4.4 (2)

Floor Space Ratio

0.5:1

0.55:1

No - Clause 4.6 variation submitted

10 per cent variation.

 

The reduction in the FSR from the original application has been largely achieved by internal adjustments to rooms, including deleting one bedroom per dwelling and some reductions in room dimensions.  However, due to commensurate increases in the size of the first floor balconies, the reduced FSR has not resulted in any meaningful reduction in the external building footprint or form, that was considered by Council to be excessive in the original application.

 

The building, whilst incorporating some minor additional articulation, still does not respond to the topography of the site by stepping down with the slope, thus remaining rather monolithic as viewed from the rear.

 

Concerns raised by an objector in relation to the potential use of the rear basement area are considered valid.  The (unamended) landscape drawing submitted with the S82A application shows the enclosure of the “gym/store”.  Whilst accepting that the architectural plans should take precedence in terms of any approval of the internal space, this clearly demonstrates how simply this space, that adds to the overall bulk and scale of the building, could be converted to GFA.

 

The S82A application was accompanied by an updated Clause 4.6 request as a pre-condition to enable Council to vary the maximum FSR expressed in Clause 4.4(2) of the RLEP 2012.  The variation is addressed as follows:

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

4)   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 summary, the applicant’s written request states that compliance is unreasonable and unnecessary because:

 

·     it provides a size and scale consistent with the desired future character of the locality as reflected by the maximum FSR of 0.65:1 for dwellings on similar sized allotments in the R2 zone;

·     it is well articulated and incorporates a variety of materials and finishes providing an attractive presentation;

·     it conforms to energy efficiency and thermal comfort requirements under the BASIX SEPP;

·     it largely complies with the maximum building height envelope controls;

·     it does not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties in terms of visual bulk, loss of privacy, overshadowing or views.

 

Assessing officer’s comment:

The applicant’s written request does not provide an acceptable justification because:

·     the applicant’s reliance on the FSR applicable to other forms of dwellings is of little relevance.  The LEP has differentiated dwelling houses and semi-detached dwellings for a reason and if it was the intention to provide similar allowances for dual occupancies, the LEP could have been explicit in that intention.  In the absence of such an explicit allowance it must be inferred that the LEP seeks to impose a more restrictive FSR on dual occupancies than dwelling houses and semis;

·     the bulk and scale of the proposal is contributed to by the presence of the rear undercroft area (even if not directly contributing to GFA), which does not demonstrate an appropriate, sensitive design approach consistent with the objectives of the development standard, particularly in terms of its visual bulk. In other words, a more sensitively designed building, with a similar GFA to that proposed, could have significantly reduced visual and other impacts compared to those resulting from the current application.  Therefore, the building presents as a much bulkier and visually intrusive building than the proposed 10% variation would suggest. Consequently, the proposal is not consistent with the desired future character of the locality in terms of bulk and scale;

·     the form and massing of the development does not step down in response to the topography of the site;

·     the proposal exceeds the maximum 8 m external wall height control under RDCP 2013 at the eastern end of the development;

·     it would result in unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

The justification for the proposed contravention of Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio is not considered to be well founded and does not meet the objectives of this clause.

 

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

The applicant’s written request identifies an energy efficient design and the lack amenity impacts on the surrounding area as environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of the development standard. Compliance with the energy efficiency and thermal targets under the BASIX SEPP is a mandatory requirement and does not adequately justify why contravention of the development standard would be acceptable in this particular circumstance. Also, the proposal would result in unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining dwellings in terms of privacy and visual amenity. The applicant has provided insufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of the development standard. 

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is inconsistent with the objectives of the maximum floor space ratio development standard. The objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R2 – Low Density Residential) are:

 

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

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

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

•    To protect the amenity of residents.

•    To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The contravention of the development standard represents an overdevelopment of the site, and it would be inconsistent with the desired future character of the area and have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of residents. The proposed development is therefore not in the public interest because it is inconsistent with the objectives of the standard and the relevant objectives for development within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

The applicant’s written request fails to adequately demonstrate that strict compliance with the development standard is unreasonable and unnecessary, and there is insufficient justification as to why contravention of the development standard would be acceptable in this particular circumstance. On that basis the applicant’s written request seeking an exception to the development standard is not supported.

 

The lack of response to the sloping topography of the site is further demonstrated by the fact that there is no change to the exceedance of the maximum external wall height guideline under Part C1 of the RCDCP 2013.

 

Amenity impacts of first floor balconies

 

The increased size of balconies compared to those in the refused application may lead to increased usage of the balconies, however noise impacts are likely to remain reasonable within a residential context.  Moveable privacy screen now proposed provide some improvement in privacy protection, however, given their limited width in the context of the increased area of the balconies, they do not satisfactorily address the privacy concerns raised by Council.

 

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 modified design submitted with this S82A review request show reductions in some internal rooms that result in a reduction to the FSR of the development.

 

However, the FSR remains in excess of the maximum FSR in the RLEP 2012 and the building envelope remains largely the same as the originally refused application, since the reduction of the floor space on the ground floor has been offset by increases in the first floor balconies. Therefore, the reduced FSR is not manifest in any identifiable reduction to the overall bulk and scale of the building that Council refused in part because it was deemed to be excessive. 


Concerns over visual intrusion from the balconies have not been adequately addressed and if anything, are exacerbated by the increase in their area.  Limited additional screening does not adequately address this concern.

 

The failure of the building to respond to the topography of the site therefore continue to result in unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining dwellings in terms of visual amenity.

 

Recommendation

 

City Plan Strategy and Development Pty Ltd has undertaken a review of DA/863/2015 pursuant to Clause 82A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and recommends that Council confirms its original determination for refusal of DA/863/2015, for the following reasons:

 

1.        The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of R2 – Low Density zone under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 in relation to the desired future character of the locality and the protection of residential amenity.

 

2.        The proposal exceeds the maximum floor space ratio of 0.5:1 specified in Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the Clause 4.6 variation to the development standard is not well founded.

 

3.        The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant objectives of Building Design under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 in that the form and massing does not respond to the topography of the site and the design lacks suitable articulation resulting in unreasonable impacts upon the adjoining dwellings in terms of visual amenity.

 

4.        The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height control under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

5.        The proposal does not satisfy the visual privacy requirements under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 because it would result in unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

S82A Compliance Report - 21 Meehan Street, MATRAVILLE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                       11 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D83/16

 

Subject:              195 Beach Street, COOGEE (DA/445/2016)

Folder No:                DA/445/2016

Author:                     Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen     

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new part 3/part 4 storey attached dual occupancy with basement parking for 4 vehicles, new swimming pool and associated site and landscape works (variation to floor space ratio).

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mr R Raso

Owner:                     Mr D R Beck

Summary

Recommendation:   Refusal

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=7a7e2681-0f14-4524-bcda-fca122ea78ff&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by the external planning consultant and referred to Council for determination as the Applicant’s consultant planner was recently an employee of Council.

1.     Background

 

On 26 July 2016, Council requested additional information to enable a proper assessment of the application, including additional reduced levels (RLs) on the design drawings for both the proposed development and the existing development on the adjoining properties; confirmation of the existing ground line and gross floor area (GFA); inclusion of height control lines on the elevation plans; and additional section drawings.

 

On 5 August 2016, updated plans were received by Council, which were sufficient to enable a proper assessment of the proposal by Council.

 

The Statement of Environmental of Effects (SEE) submitted with the development application contains inaccuracies in terms of its assessment of the building height and Floor Space Ratio (FSR) controls, and the assertions in terms of amenity impacts and building design are not are not adequately substantiated. 

 

In order to address the fundamental design issues and significant contravention to Council’s controls, the proposal would require substantial modifications to the design to the extent it would constitute a new proposal. On that basis, no amended plans were requested to address the significant design and planning issues identified in this assessment report.

 

2.     Proposal

 

The proposal is for demolition of the existing structures and construction of a new part 3/part 4 storey attached dual occupancy with basement parking for 4 vehicles, new swimming pool and associated site and landscape works. A description of the proposal by level is provided in Table 1 and illustrated in Figures 2 and 3.

 

Table 1 – Description by level

Level

Description

Ground

 

·     partially subterranean car park with a turntable allowing parking for four vehicles pool pump, storage room, lift and stairs

·     the car park protrudes above existing ground level between 1.4 m (western end) and 2.5 m (eastern end).

·     landscaped rear yard with in-ground swimming pool

·     lift and stair access

1

 

·     3 x bedroom dwelling including laundry, bathroom and ensuite

·     lift and stair access

 

2

 

·     4 x bedroom dwelling including laundry, bathroom and ensuite

·     lift and stair access

 

3

 

·     open plan kitchen dining and living space for the dwelling below including a second laundry and additional bedroom

·     lift and stair access

 

Figure 2 – Western elevation (Beach Street)

 

 

Figure 3 – Northern side elevation

 

 

 

3.     The Site and Surrounds

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Beach Street, between Neptune Street to the north and Oberon Street to the south at 195 Beach Street, Coogee.

 

The site has an area of 354 sqm. It slopes down from the southern boundary to the northern boundary representing a change in level of approximately 2 m. The site contains an existing two storey dwelling house and a garage.

 

The adjoining property to the north contains a four storey residential flat building at No. 5 Neptune Street on the lower side of the street, approximately 2 m below the ridge of the existing dwelling house on the site.

 

The adjoining property to the south contains a two storey attached dual occupancy on the higher side of the street overlooking the site.

 

Adjoining to the west is the rear yard of a part two and three storey residential building at No. 7 Neptune Street.

 

The properties to the west across beach Street contain a mix of detached dwelling houses and residential flat buildings between 2 and 4 storeys.

 

The immediate context is shown in the photos in Figures 4 to 6.

 

Figure 4 – Existing development to the west

 

Figure 3 – Existing development to the south

 

Figure 3 – Existing development to the north

 

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:

 

·     3/202 Beach Street, Coogee;

·     197 Beach Street, Coogee;

·     3/200 Beach Street, Coogee;

·     5/202 Beach Street, Coogee;

·     4/200 Beach Street, Coogee;

·     325-327 Arden Street, Coogee;

·     2/3 Neptune Street, Coogee;

·     3/247 Oberon Street, Coogee;

·     1 & 2/200 Beach Street, Coogee;

·     3/198 Beach Street, Coogee; and

·     201- 203 Beach Street, Coogee.

 

The key concerns raised in the submissions are summarized as follows:

 

Issues

Comments

Inadequate Information submitted with the DA

·     Lack of dimensions and explanatory notes on the plans

·     Inaccurate plans

·     Lack of suitable photomontage

·     Incomplete streetscape elevations

·     No existing ground levels on plans

·     Misleading representation of building in elevations and photomontage

·     Hand drawn sketches do not allow an accurate assessment of the proposal

·     Roof line for 197 Beach Street is inaccurately shown on the plans

The applicant provided updated plans  including additional information to enable a proper assessment of the proposal.

View Loss

·     Excessive building height resulting in view loss from surrounding properties to the ocean and wedding Cake Island

 

Refer to Section 4 below.

Non-compliance with Council controls

·     The proposal exceeds the FSR development standard and the wall height  and site coverage controls

·     Non-compliance with side setback control to northern boundary

·     Does not comply with requirements in Clause 6.7 Foreshore Scenic protection Area under RLEP 2012

 

Refer to Section 4 below

Excessive height, bulk and scale

·     incompatible with surrounding buildings in terms of scale

·     bulky building form

·     A fifth storey recessed from the front

·     visual bulk impacts to adjoining properties due to excessive wall heights

 

Refer to Section 4 below

Poor design

·     Lack of articulation

·     Unsympathetic to surrounding development

·     Development not stepped in response to topography and adjoining development

 

Refer to Section 4 below

Streetscape Impacts

·     Removal of existing trees and no suitable landscape to replace the trees

·     Four storey wall with only window openings and lack of articulation facing the street

·     Garage elevated above existing ground level

·     Bulky building form having adverse impact on the streetscape

·     Large and dominant structure on a steep hill

 

Refer to Section 4 below

Privacy Impacts

·     Overlooking from windows and balconies to adjoining properties

 

Refer to Section 4 below

Overshadowing

·     Unclear shadow diagrams

·     Overshadowing north facing windows and garden at 197 Beach Street

 

Refer to Section 4 below

Acoustic

·     Noise from use of upper level balconies and the ground level pool

The proposal for two dwellings is not considered to result in any significant acoustic impact to adjoining properties.

 

5.     Key Issues

 

5.1   Non-compliance with Council controls

 

Floor Space Ratio

 

A maximum FSR of 0.9:1 applies to the site under Clause 4.4(2) of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). The applicant’s SEE submitted with the application states the proposal would have an FSR of 0.91:1, which exceeds the maximum 0.9:1 FSR control. The applicant’s SEE is accompanied by a written justification that seeks to justify the contravention of the standard, pursuant to Clause 4.6 in RLEP 2102. The development application also includes Gross Floor Area (GFA) plans confirming the areas of the proposed building included in the GFA calculation. Based on a site area of 354 sqm and a gross floor area (GFA) of 277 sqm, the proposal has a FSR of 0.78:1. The proposal therefore complies with Council’s maximum FSR development standard of 0.9:1.

 

Building Height

 

A maximum building height of 12 m applies to the site under Clause 4.3(2) of RLEP 2012. The applicant’s SEE states that the building height is 12 m and therefore complies with council’s maximum building height control. However, the plans submitted with the application show the development exceeds the maximum 12 m building height control by up to 750 mm at the northern elevation when measured to the top of the pop-up roof structure, and by 400 mm at the external face of the northern wall (refer to Figure 4). The development application fails to provide a written request to vary the development standard as required under Cl.4.6 of RLEP 2012. Council therefore cannot approve the application. 

 

12 m height line10.5 m external wall height line8 m external wall height line

Figure 4Northern Elevation (Height Control Lines)

 

External Wall Height

 

A maximum external wall height of 8m applies to the site under Clause 3.2 of Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (DCP 2013). The proposed development exceeds the maximum wall height by 4 m at the northern (lower) side elevation. The southern (higher) elevation exceeds the maximum external wall height control by 2 m. 

 

The applicant’s SEE justifies the non-compliance on the basis that the site is zoned R3 Medium Density under RLEP 2012, and a higher external wall height control of 10.5 m should apply. Council’s DCP controls relate to types of development and not particular zones. Therefore low density forms of residential development such as a dual occupancy as proposed in this application would be subject to the low density residential controls in the DCP. Whilst it is acknowledged that the R3 zone allows larger development types, such as residential flat buildings, it is not considered sufficient reason to justify a non-compliance with the external wall height control. In any event if the 10.5 m external wall height control applied to the site, the proposal would still result in a 2 m variation above the control at the northern elevation when measured to the top of the pop-up roof structure (refer to Figure 4). 

 

The objective of the height control is to ensure development is compatible with the streetscape context and responds appropriately to the topography of the site whilst minimizing amenity impacts to surrounding properties. In this particular circumstance the proposal would result in significant adverse impacts in terms of view loss from surrounding properties and adverse visual impacts on the streetscape (refer to detailed discussion under the relevant headings below). On this basis the non-compliance with the maximum external wall height control is not supported.

 

Building Setback

 

The site has a frontage of 15.24 m and therefore a minimum side setback of 1.2 m applies to the lowers floors and a minimum side setback of 1.8 m applies to the upper floors. The northern wall of the proposal encroaches the minimum side setback control at ground level and Levels 2 and 3 as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Setback to the northern boundary

Level

Control

Proposed

Complies

Ground

1.2 m

1 m

No

1

1.2 m

1.5 m

Yes

2

1.8 m

1.5 m

No

3

1.8 m

1.5 m

No

 

The applicant’s SEE justifies the non-compliance on the basis that it would result in negligible additional impacts to the adjoining property and is consistent with the established built form pattern in the street. It also states that there is adequate separation between buildings to ensure appropriate amenity and the proposal provides private open space and deep soil landscaping in excess of Council’s requirements.

 

The applicant’s justification for the reduced northern setback is not supported due to view impacts on properties to the west, potential privacy impacts from the top floor windows and elevated ground floor terrace and the lack of deep soil landscape. These issues are discussed in detail below.

 

Site Coverage

 

A maximum site coverage of 55 per cent applies to the site under Clause 2.3 of DCP 2013. The proposed development would have a maximum site coverage of 61 per cent, which exceeds the maximum site coverage control. The objective of the control is to ensure there is adequate unbuilt upon areas to allow for deep soil planting and private open space. The applicant’s SEE justifies the departure on the basis there is adequate deep soil landscaping and private open space for the occupants. The proposal does not comply with the deep soil requirement, and therefore the departure from the site coverage control is not supported (refer to discussion below).

 

Deep Soil landscape

 

A minimum deep soil permeable surface of 25 per cent applies to the site under Clause 2.4 of DCP 2013. The applicant’s SEE states that the proposal would have 89 sqm deep soil landscape, which equates to 25 per cent of the site and therefore complies with the minimum deep soil control. However, a review of the plans submitted with the application show that there is 77 sqm of deep soil permeable area (with a minimum width of 900mm), which equates to 22 per cent. The proposal therefore does not comply with Council’s minimum deep soil landscape control.

 

5.2   View Loss

 

The key concerns raised by surrounding neighbours relate to view impacts.

The general principle relating to view sharing identified in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council (2004) established a four-step process for considering the impact of a development on views.

1.  An assessment of the value of views to be affected by reference to their nature, extent and completeness.

2.  A consideration of how views are obtained and what part of the property the views are obtained from.

3.  A qualitative assessment of the extent of the impact in terms of severity particularly as to whether that impact is negligible minor, moderate, severe or devastating.

4.  An assessment of the reasonableness of the proposal causing the impact particularly in terms of compliance with applicable planning controls and whether a different or complying design must produce a better result. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable.

These view sharing principles are referred to for assessing the potential view impacts associated with the proposal.

 

The residential properties to the west across Beach Street enjoy views of ocean to the east over the top of the buildings on the lower eastern side of Beach Street. Depending on the location of the property and intervening development, the existing views range from complete to partial views of Wedding Cake Island to the east and Coogee Beach to the north. It is generally the upper level windows and balconies/terraces at the streetfront, which retain the most complete views to the east. Wedding Cake Island to the east is considered an iconic view. The view to the north of Coogee Beach is considered significant. These views are from generally from standing, but in some cases also sitting positions from internal living spaces and private open space across the front boundary.

 

For the purposes of this view assessment, the view impacts were considered from four properties as described in Table 2 below:

 

Table 2View Impacts

Property

View impacted

Extent of impact

197 Beach Street (adjoining to the south)

 

The existing view to the north of Coogee Beach from the dwelling’s rooftop terrace.

 

significant

Unit 3 No. 198 Beach Street (to the west across Beach Street)

 

Part of the existing view to Wedding Cake Island from the dwelling’s balcony. Refer to Figure 5.

 

moderate

Units 2 No. 200 Beach Street (to the west across Beach Street)

 

The entire existing view of Wedding Cake Island from the dwelling’s principal private terrace.

 

  devastating

Units 3 No. 200 Beach Street (to the west across Beach Street)

 

The entire existing view of Wedding Cake Island from the dwelling’s principal private terrace.

 

  devastating

 

Wedding Cake island – existing view from the private terrace at unit 3 No. 200 Beach StreetApproximate outline proposed development

Figure 5View of Wedding Cake Island from the principal outdoor terrace at Unit 3 No. 200 Beach Street

 

The applicant’s SEE does not provide any proper view analysis by comparing the view impacts of a complying development with the proposed development. A complying development in terms of building height is likely to reduce the view impacts to surrounding properties. The view impacts are considered unreasonable given the non-compliance with Council’s height controls. On that basis, the proposal is not supported in terms of views impacts to surrounding properties.

 

5.3   Streetscape/Design

 

Clause 4.1 of RDCP 2013 establishes controls in relation to building design to ensure development is compatible with the built form context and makes a positive contribution to the streetscape. This is achieved by articulating the external facades to reduce the apparent mass and present a human scale by measures such as window openings, balconies and staggered wall planes. The proposed development would present as a four storey built form when viewed from the street. The front elevation is contained within a single plane with only window openings for articulation. The solid lift core building element would also dominate the façade and exacerbate the bulky form of the building (refer to Figure 6).

 

The side elevations lack sufficient articulation and would result in an adverse visual impacts when viewed from the adjoining properties. The pop-up roof structure also adds to the excessive bulk of the building. The ground level wall at the northern elevation is 21 m in length. The Level 1 wall length is 13 m. The proposal therefore exceeds the maximum wall length of 12 m established under the building design controls. The design lacks sufficient articulation and the bulky form would have an adverse impact on the streetscape and adjoining properties. The proposal would result in a poor design outcome for the street and is not supported.

 

Figure 6Proposed streetscape Elevation

 

5.4   Overshadowing

 

A minimum of 3 hours sunlight is required to adjoining properties between 8:00 and 4:00pm at the winter solstice under Clause 5.1 of RDCP 2013. The ground floor apartment on the adjoining property to the south at 197 Beach Street currently receives unimpeded solar access during the winter solstice to its principal living room window on the northern elevation between 8:00 and 4:00pm at the winter solstice. The proposal would reduce solar access to the principal living room window to approximately two hours between 8:00 am and 10:00 am at the winter solstice.   It is noted that the dwelling would still receive good solar access to its kitchen and dining rooms at the eastern end of the dwelling. Given the east-west orientation of the site it is difficult to maintain solar access between properties. Notwithstanding, a compliant design in terms of building height would reduce the extent of overshadowing to the south. The proposal in its current form is not supported in terms of overshadowing.

 

5.5   Visual Privacy

 

A skilful design is required to minimize visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties under Clause 5.3 in RDCP 2013. It is noted there is currently significant overlooking between properties in the locality. The potential privacy impacts are from the upper level windows along the side elevations, upper level rear balconies and elevated ground level rear terrace. The proposal incorporates privacy screens to the side elevation of the rear balconies to mitigate views to the adjoining properties to the north and south. However, the privacy screens also add to the bulky form of the building. The proposal would potentially result in significant overlooking from the ground floor rear terrace and it’s not clear what privacy measures have been incorporated into the design to mitigate overlooking of the adjoining properties. The proposal is therefore not supported on the grounds of potential adverse privacy impacts to adjoining properties.

 

6.        Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

7.        Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

8.        Conclusion

 

The proposed development exceeds the maximum 12 m building height development standard in RLEP 2012, and no written request has been provided by the applicant to justify the non-compliance in accordance with Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

Furthermore, the proposal does not comply with the planning controls in RDCP 2013 in terms of external wall height, building setback, site coverage and deep soil landscape.

 

The bulky form and lack of building articulation would have a significant adverse impact on the streetscape. The design represents a poor outcome for the street.

 

The proposal would also result in adverse visual privacy and overshadowing impacts to the adjoining properties, and unreasonable view impacts to the surrounding area.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     That Council, as the consent authority, refuse its consent under Section 80 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 as amended, to Development Application No. 445/2016 in relation to the attached proposed dual occupancy at 195 Beach Street Coogee for the following reasons:

 

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

 

2.        The proposal exceeds the maximum building height control of 12m specified in Clause 4.3 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012, and no written request justifying the contravention to the development standard was submitted with the application.

 

3.        The proposal exceeds the maximum site coverage control under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

4.        The proposal exceeds the maximum external wall height control under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

5.        The proposal does not comply with the building design controls under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013, and would result in a poor design outcome for the street.

 

6.        The proposal does not comply with the minimum deep soil landscaped area control under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

7.        The proposal does not comply with the side setback controls under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

8.        The proposal does not satisfy the solar access and overshadowing requirements under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 because it would result in unreasonable overshadowing impacts to the adjoining property to the south.

 

9.        The proposal does not satisfy the visual privacy requirements under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 because it would result in unreasonable privacy impacts to the adjoining properties.

 

10.      The proposal does not satisfy the view sharing requirements under Part C1 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 because it would result in unreasonable view impacts to the surrounding residential properties.

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 195 Beach Street, COOGEE

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                       11 October 2016

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D84/16

 

Subject:              40 Dutruc Street, Randwick (DA/895/2015)

Folder No:                DA/895/2015

Author:                     Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new four storey residential flat building containing eight units, basement car parking for nine vehicles and associated site and landscaping works and strata subdivision (variation to building height)

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                MHN Design Union

Owner:                     Dutruc Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=be550e10-bca3-4399-aa6b-22d6315b368b&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to Planning Committee Meeting for determination as the cost of works exceeds $2 million.

 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new four storey residential flat building containing eight units including four affordable housing units, basement car parking for nine vehicles and associated site and landscaping works and strata subdivision (variation to building height)

 

Site

 

The subject site is known as 40 Dutruc Street and formally described as Lot 1 in DP 77514. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a combined frontage width of 12.575 metres, a side boundary depth of 42.19 metres (northern) and 42.255 metres (southern) and an overall site area of 524.8sqm.

 

Neighbouring the site to the north, south and west of the subject site are existing four storey residential flat buildings which comprise of car parking located at grade with residential units above. To the east on the opposite side of Dutruc Street is a pair of two storey free standing dwelling houses. The subject site is immediately adjacent to a number of heritage items on the opposite side of Dutruc Street at nos. 11A, 15 and 21 Dutruc Street and heritage conservation area known as the St. Marks heritage conservation area. The site is neither a heritage item or located within a heritage conservation area. The immediate locality consist of a mixture of low to medium density residential development with residential flat buildings that comprise of four storeys in scale on the western side of Dutruc Street and single to two storey detached dwelling houses on the eastern side of Dtruc Street.

 

An approved two storey boarding house is currently occupied on the subject site.

 

Development History:

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on the 1 August 2016 which included the following modifications to the original design scheme.

 

·     Increase setback to 2 – 2.3 metres from the northern side boundary

·     Reduce setback to 2.3 metres from the southern side boundary

·     Reduce floor area of unit no.1

·     Increase setback of common core areas by 500mm from the northern side boundary and 300mm from the southern side boundary

·     Relocate fire exit no. 2 ramp with additional setback from southern side boundary

·     Reposition planter boxes along the southern side boundary 

·     Installation of new external louvre screens infront of north and south-facing window openings at the first, second and third floor levels.

·     Minor alterations to the location and sizes of window openings

·     New clerestory windows at the roof top level

·     Increase height of lift overrun

·     View loss assessment

·     Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards to building height.

 

Clause 4.6: Variations to a Development Standard

 

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 

12.13 metres

Maximum permissible height of building 

12 metres

Height of building exceeding LEP control

150mm (1%)

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

1.       Consistency with the objectives of the 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 proposed development will result in a minor breach to the height of buildings requirements within three areas. The lift overrun will result in a building height of 12.1 metres (as measured from the existing finished floor level of the boarding house), the main ridge of the roof to the western portion of the building at 12.13 metres and the main ridge of the front roof to the eastern portion of the building at 12.15 metres. The exceedance from the Council control is minor and does not contribute to any adverse visual bulk and scale impacts that are visible from the existing streetscape setting. The minor breach will remain in keeping with the streetscape setting given the proposed development will remain well within the building height plane of the neighbouring buildings to the north and south at nos. 32-38 and 42 Dutruc Street. The development will also continue to respect the topography of the site as the building blocks slope away from north to south and will fit comfortably within the existing streetscape context, in particular the larger scale forms of development immediately adjoining the subject premises. The minor breach is acceptable and will remain 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,

 

Assessment:

The subject site is located within close proximity to the St. Marks Heritage Conservation Area and the heritage items located on the opposite side of Dutruc Street consisting of no. 11A and 15 Dutruc Street described as a ‘Pair of Victoria Terraces’ (item no. I360), 21 Dutruc Street described as ‘Victorian Italiante Villa’ (item no. I361) and 62 St Marks Road described as a ‘Group of Italianate House’ (item no. I442). The non-compliance to the height standard is marginal and will not compromise the heritage setting of the heritage conservation area in considering it remains compatible with the four storey scale of the residential flat buildings within Dutruc Street. Council’s heritage planning officer has reviewed the development application and has no objection to the development.

 

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 areas of non-compliance to the building height will not contribute to any additional shadowing impacts to the immediate southern neighbour and will generally fall on the subject site itself given the low pitched nature of the roof form. The bulk and scale of the development is considered to be reasonable given the general compatibility with the four storey character of the adjoining buildings and its overall consistency being within the building height plane. Finally, the additional building height does not result in any overlooking impacts or view loss impacts from the neighbouring buildings. 

 

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

 

        Objectives of zone:

 

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

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

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

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

·      To protect the amenity of residents.

·      To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

Assessment:

The proposed demolition of the existing boarding house and construction of a new four storey residential flat building with infill affordable housing component is a permissible form of development as per the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 and will generally comply with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential zoning. The current building scheme comprises of a four storey scale which will remain consistent with the adjoining residential flat buildings in particular located on the western side of Dutruc Street and will be compatible with the building heights of the neighbouring buildings in particular those that immediately adjoin the subject premise at nos. 32-38 Dutruc and 42 Dutruc Street. The minor breach to the building height will not contribute to any adverse visual bulk and scale impacts and will fit comfortably within the site which demonstrates compliance with the relevant building envelope controls including setbacks (as conditioned), landscaping, floor space and providing for appropriate building depths. Furthermore, the materials and finishes of the built form encompass a predominant facebrick finish that will be commensurate with the character of the 1960’s – 1970’s residential flat buildings to the north and south of the subject site. Finally, the amenity impacts are considered reasonable in terms of shadowing considering the inherent site constraints of the east/west facing configured allotments and will not contribute to any adverse visual privacy, views and visual bulk and scale amenity impacts.  

 

3.     Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment:

The proposed development is consistent with the State Planning Policies with respect to the State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009, the State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX).

 

4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment:

The design scheme adopts a four storey scale and will fit comfortably within the subject allotment. The additional building height does not contribute to any unreasonable bulk that will form a detracting feature compromising the streetscape character and the development will continue to comply with the building envelope objectives with regards to appropriate setbacks, building height and areas to provide adequate landscaping. As prescribed above, the variation to the building height development standard will not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring dwellings with respect to amenity impacts of solar access, overshadowing 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 building variation:

 

·     The additional building height is considered to be marginal and the degree of non-compliance is limited to a maximum of 100mm - 150mm at three areas of the built form. The additional building height is insignificant and will not compromise the appearance of the building within the existing streetscape setting. The height of the proposed building will generally remain compatible with the adjoining neighbours.

 

·     The front (eastern) roof consists of a ridge level at RL84.4 of the new development will comfortably fit within the established building height plane to the adjacent dwellings at nos. 32-38 and 40 Dutruc Street with a main ridge level of the roof form at RL88.34 and RL83.90. The minor non-compliance does not give rise to any perceivable visual bulk and scale impacts and the apparent massing of the development will remain compatible with the context of the local street character.

 

·     The proposed building height will provide a reasonable level of amenity to the neighbouring buildings. In terms of overshadowing, the additional building height from the lift overrun and the main ridge of the front and western end of the roof will not cast any additional shadowing to the adjoining neighbouring buildings and is likely to fall on the subject site itself. In addition to this, the area of non-compliance does not contribute to any visual privacy or view loss impacts from the adjoining dwellings. The development is satisfactory in providing a reasonable level of amenity to the neighbouring buildings.   

 

6.       The Variation is within the Public Interest

 

Assessment:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified between the dates of the 13 January to the 28 January 2016 of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received as a result of the notification process:

 

1/2 Wood Street, Randwick

2/2 Wood Street, Randwick

4/2 Wood Street, Randwick

5/2 Wood Street, Randwick

6/2 Wood Street, Randwick

6/32-38 Dutruc Street, Randwick

9/32-38 Dutruc Street, Randwick

Owners Corporation of SP6266 (32-38 Dutruc Street, Randwick)

1/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

2/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

3/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

4/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

5/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

6/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

7/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

8/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

9/42 Dutruc Street, Randwick

 

·     The proposal will result in a non-compliant rear setback.  

 

Assessment: Noted. Refer to key issues within this report for further details.

 

·     The proposal will result in adverse visual privacy impacts.

 

Assessment: Noted. Refer to key issues within this report for further details.

 

·     The proposal will result in adverse acoustic noise impacts.

 

Assessment: The proposed development is not expected to contribute to any adverse acoustic noise impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The proposed residential flat building will comply with the controls and objectives of Clause 5.4: Acoustic Privacy of the RDP2013. A condition of consent has been included that the residential flat development be setback a minimum of 6.33 metres from the rear boundary in order to provide ample building separation from the proposed development to the rear adjoining neighbours and is consistent with demonstrating full compliance with the rear setback control of Council’s RDCP2013.  The noise generated from the front and rear balcony structures are acceptable given the balconies comply with the minimum area requirements as prescribed within the ADG and are considered to be an ancillary form of development to a residential flat development within an R3: Medium Density Residential zoning. 

 

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

 

Assessment: Noted. Refer to key issues within this report for further details.

 

·     The proposal will result in view loss impacts.

 

Assessment: Noted. Refer to key issues within this report for further details.

 

·     The proposal will compromise the heritage significance of the adjoining buildings.

 

Assessment: The subject site is not a heritage item nor located within a heritage conservation area, however, immediately adjoins the St. Marks heritage conservation area. Subsequently, an assessment is required on the character of the building and its contributory elements to the existing streetscape setting. Council’s heritage planning officer has reviewed the development application and advised that the large group of residential flat buildings on the western side of Dutruc Street forms an edge of a generally consistent scale [4 storeys in building height] to the heritage conservation area on the eastern side of the street. As the subject site is on the opposite side of the street, the proposed development will not impact on the fabric of the buildings within the heritage conservation area and its isolated nature in the surrounding context will not significantly impact on the streetscape setting, or views to and from the St. Marks Heritage Conservation Area. Subsequently, the development is acceptable in complying with Clause 5.10: Heritage Conservation of the RLEP2012. 

 

·     The subject site is considered to be too narrow to accommodate the proposed development.

 

Assessment: The subject site consists of a frontage width of 12.275 metres along Dutruc Street. The frontage width is not considered to be insufficient in width to accommodate the proposed development in that the proposal will comply with the suite of building envelope controls including the floor space ratio, setbacks, landscaping and soft landscaping requirements (as per the SEPPARH2009). The minor departure to the maximum building height is restricted mostly to the rear portion of the development by 360mm and the lift overrun by 100mm and will not contribute to the perceivable visual bulk and scale of the development visible from the existing streetscape. Further, the departure to the external wall height will also align with the four storey scale of the neighbouring buildings to the north and south of the subject site and will be entirely compatible with the neighbouring buildings. The proposal will fit comfortably on the subject site and is sited and designed to response to the existing site context.  

 

·     The proposal will result in the removal of significant trees.

 

Assessment: Council’s landscape officer has reviewed the development application and the removal of 11 trees within the site are due to either its direct conflict with the footprint of the new development, have low or very low retention value or are exempt from Council’s DCP and are listed as an invasive weed. The trees that are covered by Council’s DCP including a Bay Tree has been observed to be in poor condition due to its existing lean to the south-east and would on the north-western side of its trunk

 

·     The proposal will result in a non-complaint provision of off-street parking.

 

Assessment: Noted. Refer to key issues within this report for further details.

 

·     The proposal will result in non-compliant landscaped area.

 

Assessment: The proposal will result in a minor non-compliance to the landscape requirements as prescribed within the RDCP2013. The Council controls require a minimum of 50% of the site area to be provided as landscaping (262.4sqm) and the proposal provides 48.6% of the site area to be provided as landscaping (255.24sqm) which results in a shortfall by 7.16sqm which is considered a minor variation from the Council control. The departure is considered to be minor to warrant refusal of the development application and will generally remain consistent with the objectives of landscaping. The development will retain sufficient areas of built and unbuilt upon land, will comply with the soft landscaping provisions (as required by the SEPPARH2009) for stormwater infiltration and the landscaped areas is suitably dimensioned to accommodate vegetative growth and the outdoor recreational needs of the occupants. The minor variation is acceptable in complying with the objectives for landscaped open space.

 

Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that Clause 14(1)(c) of the SEPPARH2009 specifies that a consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this division applies on the grounds of landscaped area: 

 

(i) in the case of a development made by a social housing provider – at least 35sqm of landscaped area per dwelling is provided, or

 

(ii) in any other case – at least 30 percent of the site area is to be landscaped.

 

The proposal will comply with the above SEPPARH2009 and will provide substantially more than the minimum required 30% of landscaped area. Subsequently, Council cannot refuse the application in its current form on the grounds of landscaped area.

 

·     The development application was lodged during Christmas and does not provide an ample opportunity for neighbours to provide a submission.

 

Assessment: The development application was lodged with Council on the 17 December 2015. The development application was formally notified to the adjoining neighbours between the dates of the 13 January 2016 to the 28 January 2016 to account for those away during the Christmas period. In addition, the application was renotified for the period of 1 April to the 15 April 2016 to correct an error in the description of the development in the original development. The application was also advertised within the local newspaper in accordance with Council’s notification policy.  

 

·     The proposal will result in the loss of property value.

 

Assessment: The loss of property value is not a matter of consideration under Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

 

·     The proposal will demolish the existing boarding house and result in a loss of affordable housing.

 

Assessment: Noted. Part 3: Retention of existing affordable rental housing of the SEPPARH2009 has been considered as part of this assessment. Refer to the key issues within this report for further details.

 

·     The proposal will result in an overdevelopment of the site.

 

Assessment: The proposal does not contribute to an overdevelopment of the site. The development complies with the suite of building envelope controls including floor area, setbacks (as conditioned), landscaping and soft landscaping requirements as prescribed by the SEPP Provisions and the RDCP2013. The minor variation to the building height is limited to a small central portion of the rear yard and the south-western corner of the proposed development which seeks to vary the maximum building height by 130mm and 100mm, respectively. The increase to the building height is a result of a localized low point along the site and the development will generally remain compliant with the maximum permissible 12 metre building height limit. Across majority of the subject premises. 

 

 

·     The submitted statement of environmental effects contains inaccuracies.

 

Assessment: The submitted statement of environmental effects does not form part of the approved development consent.

 

·     The proposal is not considered to be affordable housing.

 

Assessment: The proposal involves allocating additional units as infill affordable housing development with development consent sought under the SEPPARH2009. Units 1, 3, 4 and 5 are all allocated as affordable housing as detailed by the submitted statement of environmental effects and are suitably conditioned as part of this consent.

 

·     The proposal will result in early construction hours.

 

Assessment: A suitable condition of consent has been included to restrict the permitted working hours for all building, demolition and site works. 

 

AS state, the owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were re-notified between the dates of the 1 April 2016 to the 14 April 2016 of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The application was re-notified to correct the description relating to the number of off-street parking spaces. Two submissions were received. The key submissions have been outlined as above. 

 

The proposal was again re-notified between the dates of the 18 August 2016 to the 1 September 2016 to incorporate amended plans which include increase setback to the northern boundary to 2.3 metres, reduce southern boundary setback to 2.3 metres, reduce floor area of unit no. 1, reduce the floor level of the basement by 305mm, increase setback of lobby areas from the side boundaries, relocate fire exit stairs, delete planter along the southern boundary, install louvres to window openings along the northern and southern elevation, new skylight and clerestory windows to the roof level, increase height of lift overrun, minor internal reconfiguration of the floor layout with a variation to height of building control. No additional submissions were received with respect to the amended plans.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing 2009)

 

Clause 16A – Character of local area

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:

The proposed residential flat development when viewed from Dutruc Street will visually appear four storeys in building height. In considering the contextual nature of the existing buildings within the streetscape, the proposed built form will appear of a similar scale than those within the immediate vicinity of the subject site along Dutruc Street (which are typically four storeys in scale). The neighbouring buildings at nos. 18, 20, 22-24, 26-28 30, 32-38, 42 and 44 Dutruc Street all comprise of four storeys in scale and the proposal will be consistent with the built form character of the surrounding developments. In considering the building height, the new development will comfortably fit within the building height plane of the neighbourings buildings with an RL84.4 and will fit between the downhill neighbour at no. 42 Dutruc Street with the main ridge at RL83.9 and the uphill neighbour at no. 32-38 Dutruc Street with a height from the main ridge at RL88.34.

 

 

Furthermore, the proposed building envelope is generally compliant with the suite of building envelope controls including the setbacks, landscaping and soft landscaping requirements. The overall compliance with the building envelope controls illustrates a development that is of an appropriate scale and would be compatible with other permissible forms of development within an R3: Medium Density Residential Zone that would otherwise comply with Council’s controls. The non-compliance to the height is marginal with a variation of 1% and the included Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards is justifiable with respect to achieving compliance with the objectives for Building height. Subsequently, on merit the proposed flat building is compatible with the built form of the immediate locality given it represents one that is consistent with the envisaged streetscape character dictated by Council’s controls.

 

The additional floor space can also easily be accommodated within the site given the development will appropriately conform to the existing developments. The distribution of the FSR will achieve a similar bulk and scale as the neighbouring residential flat developments with regard to its four storey scale and its general compliance with the setbacks and landscaping represents a development that is in keeping to the existing street character.

 

In considering the above, the proposal is entirely compatible with the desired future character of the area and built form expectations as regulated by the built form controls.

 

Compatibility of use:

The proposed use is for the purposes of a ‘residential flat development’ and is a permissible form of development as exhibited by the RLEP2012 and SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009. The development is in keeping with other forms of medium density residential developments. 

 

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=4d78d8a8-6490-4de1-96f4-92f1f071e106&contentType=image%2Fpng

Image 1: Subject site and the RLEP2012 Zoning Maps

 

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=e70db5c3-2c0f-484c-9a2c-07e9958b23f5&contentType=image%2Fpng

Image 2: Subject site and the RLEP2012 Height of Buildings Map

 

Consistency with the objectives of the Residential Zone;

The proposal is clearly consistent with the objectives of the zone, detailed as follows:

 

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

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

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

·     To protect the amenity of residents.

·     To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

The proposed development will comply with the objectives of the R3: Medium  Density Residential Zone and the appearance of the proposed development will be in harmony with the evolving nature of the streetscape.

 

The local character test is satisfied on this occasion.

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65: (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development)

 

Part 3F: Visual privacy

 

In order to achieve appropriate levels of visual privacy, the ADG requires a minimum building separation of 6 metres from habitable rooms to the side boundaries and 3 metres from non-habitable rooms for buildings less than 4 storeys in height. The current proposal includes a side setback of 1.5 metres from the lower ground and ground floor level and 2 metres at the first floor level. The proposal does not comply with the design criteria and represents a significant departure from the ADG requirements.

 

However, it is impractical to provide a compliant building separation to the southern boundaries in accordance with Part 3F-1: Visual Privacy given a 6 metre side setback physically constrains the site and significantly impacts the area that the site can be reasonably developed on. Therefore, a greater emphasis should be placed on the side setback controls as prescribed within the RDCP2013 in reasonably determining the appropriate building setback from the neighbouring dwellings and any visual privacy impacts should conform to the design guidance requirements and minimizing direct sightlines by adopting visual privacy measures. In terms of privacy impacts, the window openings at the first, second and third floor levels comprise of louvres in front of the window openings which will minimise any overlooking impacts to the adjoining habitable room windows and private open spaces of the northern and southern neighbouring dwellings. Further, to ensure a reasonable level of visual privacy a further condition has been included that the window have a minimum floor to ceiling height of 1.6 metres above floor level, or alternatively, the windows are to be fixed and be provided with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing below this specified height.

 

With respect to the rear boundary setback, a suitable condition of consent has been included that the proposed residential flat development be setback a minimum of 6.3 metres from the western (rear) boundary in order to comply with the rear setback control and provide ample building separation to the rear adjoining neighbour at no. 2 Wood Street. The inclusion of the above condition will ensure the proposed development will demonstrate compliance with Part 3F: Visual Privacy. 

 

Part 4A: Solar and daylight access

 

Proposed development:

Part 4A: Solar and Daylight Access under the Apartment Design Guide specifies that living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of two hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building must receive no direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm at mid-winter. The following apartments will receive the following direct solar access requirements in accordance with the SEPP controls:

 

Level

Unit no.

> 2 hours of solar access to living rooms and private open space

< 2 hours direct solar access to living rooms and private open space

No solar access to living rooms and private open space

G

1

 

 

 

G

2

 

 

 

1

3

 

 

 

1

4

 

 

 

2

5

 

 

 

2,3

6

 

 

 

2,3

7

 

 

 

3

8

 

 

 

Total

6

0

2

Percentage

75%

0%

25%

 

The east facing units (unit nos. 1, 3, 5 and 8) of the residential flat building will maintain a minimum of two hours of direct solar access to the living room and private open spaces between the periods of 9am – 11am and will comply with the ADG requirements. The third floor north-facing unit (unit no. 6) will maintain the required two hours of solar access to the top half of the living room windows and the west facing balcony between the hours of 11am – 1pm. The third floor south-facing unit (unit no. 7) will preserve more than two hours of solar access through the north-facing clerestory window opening to the living room areas and will receive the two hours of solar access to the west facing balcony during the afternoon period between the hours of 2pm and 4pm. Unit nos. 2 and 4 will not receive any direct sunlight and therefore 25% of the total number of apartments will not receive any direct solar access. The proposal will not comply with the ADG in that more than 15% apartments will receive no direct solar access.  

 

The proposed residential flat development cannot reasonably comply with the minimum requirements solar access requirements as prescribed within the ADG with respect to the surrounding site context. The immediate northern neighbour is elevated above the ground level (existing) of the subject site by approximately 2 metres and consists of an overall building height of approximately 14.85 metres. The difference in level, the extensive building height, the existing building depth which extends beyond the rear building alignment of the proposed development and the building being sited to the north of the subject site all contributes to an unreasonable level of overshadowing being cast to the north-facing window openings. Therefore there are difficulties in achieving the maximum 15% of the apartments in particular given the extent of shadows cast by the existing development. The variation from the design criteria requirements is acceptable given the proposal will generally comply with the objective of Part 4A with the development optimizing the amount of sunlight to habitable rooms, primary windows and areas of private open spaces. The strategic room layout provides for living spaces at the third floor level to units 6 and 7 adopting a split level design with north-facing clerestory windows to maximize sunlight to the southern orientated apartments. Further, the location of the balconies along the north-eastern corner will ensure they receive a minimum of two hours of solar access during the early morning period.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has submitted amended plans which includes a ‘bronze coloured metal vertical louvres added to articulate the façade’ on the amended plans received by Council on the Revision B plans dated on the 14 July 2016. However, the louvres have the potential to minimise the amount of direct solar access received to the window openings. No details have been provided on whether the louvres are operable or not and therefore a suitable condition of consent has been included to ensure adequate solar access is received into the first, second and third floor north-facing windows.

 

Neighbouring Development:

Part 3B: Orientation specifies that overshadowing of neighbouring properties is minimised during mid-winter and that compliance must be demonstrated within Part 4A: Solar and Daylight Access within the ADG. Part 4A specifies that living rooms and private open spaces of at least 70% of apartments in a building receive a minimum of two hours of direct sunlight between 9am and 3pm at mid-winter. A maximum of 15% of apartments in a building must receive no direct sunlight between 9am – 3pm at mid-winter.

 

The southern neighbouring building (no. 42 Dutruc Street) consists of a four storey residential flat building with parking at grade and residential units above. The floor layout consists of three residential apartments at the first, second and third floor levels of the building with a total of nine residential apartments. Of the nine residential apartments, three apartments consist of a directly easterly orientation, three apartments with a northerly orientation and three apartments with a southerly orientation.