RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 14 March 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

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, 14 March 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                           Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 14 February 2017

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D21/17      8 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/596/2016) (Deferred)........................... 1

D22/17      47 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/650/2016).......................................... 39

D23/17      81 Bream St, Coogee (DA/491/2014/A)................................................. 43

D24/17      32 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/773/2016)......................................... 55

D25/17      5 Dangar Street, Randwick (DA/713/2016)............................................. 75

D26/17      5 Edfecliffe Avenue, South Coogee (DA/419/2016).................................. 81

D27/17      3 Forsyth Street, Kingsford (DA/887/2010/A)........................................ 103

D28/17      135-143R Beach Street, Coogee (DA/897/2016)..................................... 109

D29/17      12 Bunya Parade, South Coogee (DA/899/2016).................................... 119

D30/17      14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (DA/50/2017)....................................... 125

D31/17      8 McMaster Place, Little Bay (DA/533/2016).......................................... 135

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D21/17

 

Subject:             8 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/596/2016) (Deferred)

Folder No:                   DA/596/2016

Author:                   Kerry Kyriacou, Manager Development Assessment     

 

Introduction

 

The subject application involves conversion of the existing residential flat building into a pair of semi-detached dwellings including amendments to the strata plan. It was referred to the Planning Committee Meeting on 14 February 2017, where it was resolved:

 

“(Matson/Shurey) that the application be deferred for legal advice in relation to whether the proposal constitutes semi-detached dwellings as defined under the RLEP 2012.”

 

In accordance with the above resolutions advice was sought from Council’s Lawyers Marsdens.

 

Issues:

 

The following advice was received from Marsdens Law Group:

 

“I refer to your email below concerning the development application for alterations and additions to the existing residential flat building on the land known as 8 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (SP13633).

 

Given that the development as proposed would result in two dwellings that are attached to each other but are each on their own strata lot it seems to me that the development would be properly characterised as development for the purpose of “semi-detached dwellings” as defined in the Dictionary of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012  (i.e. a dwelling that is on its own lot of land and is attached to only one other dwelling). The word “lot” does not distinguish between a torrens lot. A lot created in a strata subdivision under the Strata Titles Act is still a "lot" (see Denis Smith v Wollondilly Council [1995] NSWLEC 42).  

 

It would be important to ensure that the proposed re-subdivision occurs prior to the dwellings being fitted out in a manner that makes them capable of being occupied or used as separate domiciles.

 

In that regard, I note the condition that was imposed on the grant of development consent by the Land and Environment Court in the matter of Parris v Randwick City Council [2016] NSWLEC 1507 and that a condition to the following effect may need to be imposed:

 

“A subdivision certificate for the strata subdivision of land approved by this Consent must not be issued until after construction of the proposed dwellings approved under this Consent has reached “lock-up” stage, which includes the construction of floors, walls, ceilings, roofs and with all external doors and windows in place, but before any kitchens and bathrooms have been installed in those buildings. The lots in the approved strata subdivision must be created after construction of the proposed dwellings approved under this Consent has reached “lock-up” stage (as described above) but before any kitchens and bathrooms have been installed in the proposed dwellings.”

 

The above advice confirms that the correct classification of the proposed development pursuant to Council’s RLEP 2012 is that of semi-detached dwellings. A condition is also included (as recommended above) to address the proper staging of the works.

 

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 is referred back to council for its consideration.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/596/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building to a pair of semi-detached dwellings at No. 8 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly, subject to the following conditions of consent:

 

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

Received by Council

DA-01-SK1

(Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-02

(Revision C)         

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-03 (Revision D)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-04

(Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-05

(Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-06 (Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-07

(Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-09

(Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-10

(Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

DA-01-11

(Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

06.1 (Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

06.2 (Revision C)

Hancock Architects

31/01/2017

31 January 2017

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.   Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, Development Consent DA/255/2014 and stamped plans must be surrendered to Council.

 

b.   The ground floor, south-facing deck shall be setback 2.1 metres from the western boundary and maintain a similar setback as the existing deck to ensure a reasonable level of visual privacy is provided to the adjoining neighbours.

 

c.   The first floor level shall be setback a minimum of 1800mm from the eastern side boundary and comply with the minimum side setback requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The floor plan shall be reconfigured to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.      

 

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

 

e.   A subdivision certificate for the strata subdivision of land approved by this Consent must not be issued until after construction of the proposed dwellings approved under this Consent has reached “lock-up” stage, which includes the construction of floors, walls, ceilings, roofs and with all external doors and windows in place, but before any kitchens and bathrooms have been installed in those buildings. The lots in the approved strata subdivision must be created after construction of the proposed dwellings approved under this Consent has reached “lock-up” stage (as described above) but before any kitchens and bathrooms have been installed in the proposed dwellings.

 

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.       The colours, materials and finishes of the external surfaces are to be compatible with the existing building and adjacent development to maintain the integrity and amenity of the building and the streetscape.

 

External materials, finishes and colours of the building are required to match, as closely as possible, the existing building and any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted (e.g. Colourbond) to limit the level of reflection and glare.

 

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 $1,796,047 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $17,960.47.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

The Principal Certifying Authority must ensure that a Sydney Water Quick Check Agent has appropriately stamped the plans prior to issuing the construction certificate.

 

Security Deposit

8.       The following damage / civil works security deposit requirement must be complied with as security for making good any damage caused to the roadway, footway, verge or any public place; and as security for completing any public work; and for remedying any defect on such public works, in accordance with section 80A(6) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979:

 

·           $5000.00    -      Damage / Civil Works Security Deposit

 

       The damage/civil works security deposit may be provided by way of a cash, cheque or credit card payment and is refundable upon a satisfactory inspection by Council upon the completion of the civil works which confirms that there has been no damage to Council's infrastructure.

                  

       The owner/builder is also requested 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.

 

To obtain a refund of relevant deposits, a Security Deposit Refund Form is to be forwarded to Council’s Director of City Services upon issuing of an occupation certificate or completion of the civil works.

 

Stormwater Drainage

9.       To meet the demand of the proposed development and comply with the requirements of the SEPP 71 (Coastal Protection) all site stormwater must be piped to a sediment/silt arrester pit that then drains under the coastal walk to discharge to Gordon’s Bay Reserve via a suitable outlet. If an upgrade of the existing stormwater drainage system is required to meet his requirement detailed drainage plans with levels reduced to Australian Height Datum (AHD), shall be prepared by a suitably qualified Hydraulic Engineer and be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority.  A copy of the plans shall be forwarded to Council, if Council is not the certifying authority.

 

The drainage plans must demonstrate compliance with the Building Code of Australia, Australian Standard AS3500.3:2003 (Plumbing and Drainage - Stormwater Drainage) and the relevant conditions of this development approval.

 

10.     The location and details of any proposed internal stormwater pipelines, silt arrestor pit and outlet shall be submitted to and approved by the certifying authority (* and Council see note b below) prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development. A copy of the plans shall be forwarded to Council, prior to a construction certificate being issued, if Council is not the certifying authority.

 

Notes:

a.     The sediment/silt arrestor pit shall be constructed:-

 

i.     within the site at or near the southern boundary.

ii.     with a child proof and corrosion resistant fastening system (e.g. spring loaded jay-bolt).

iii.    with a minimum of 4 x 90 mm diameter weep holes (preferably located in the walls of the pit at the floor level) and with a suitable geotextile material with a high filtration rating located around the weep holes.

iv.    with the pit floor being a minimum 300mm below the invert level of the outlet pipelines.

v.    with a galvanised heavy duty screen (Lysaght RH3030 Maximesh or similar) located over the outlet pipes draining to the infiltration pit and the kerb. (Similar to a Mascot GRC stormwater discharge control pit, product code DS3SDC).

 

b.     The location and features of any point of discharge (e.g headwall) in Gordon’s Bay Reserve must be approved by Council’s Development Engineer (9093-6881) and Natural Resources Coordinator (9093-6686) in writing prior to a construction certificate being issued for this development.

 

c.     Any overflow pipes from rainwater tanks shall be directed to the sediment arrestor pit.

 

Sydney Water

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

Tree Protection Measures

12.     In order to ensure retention of the Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) located in the front setback, in the southwest corner, fronting Gordons Bay, the Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia) to its east, in the southeast corner, as well as those most northern Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palms) in the rear setback in good health, the following measures are to be undertaken:

 

a.       All documentation submitted for the Construction Certificate application must show the retention of these trees/palms, with the position and diameter of both their trunks and canopies/crowns to be clearly and accurately shown on all plans in relation to the proposed works.

 

b.       Any excavations associated with the installation of new services, pipes, stormwater systems or similar must be setback at the maximum distance possible from their trunks so as to avoid root damage as well as future maintenance issues, with all hydraulic plans needing to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

 

c.       Any new common/dividing fencing or retaining walls, within a radius of 2 metres of their trunks, can only be a system which is supported on localised pad footings, not strip footings, with details confirming compliance to be shown on the Construction Certificate plans.

 

d.       If roots are encountered during installation of footings for point ‘c’ above, these footings must be re-positioned to allow their preservation.

 

e.       These trees/palms are to be physically protected (either individually or as a group) by the installation of 1.8 metre high steel mesh/chainwire fencing, which shall be located a minimum distance of 1.5 metres (measured off the outside edge of their trunks at ground level), matching up with any common boundaries where possible, in order to completely enclose this tree for the duration of works.

 

f.       This fencing shall be installed prior to the commencement of demolition and construction works and shall remain in place until all works are completed, to which, signage containing the following words shall be clearly displayed and permanently attached: “TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ), DO NOT REMOVE/ENTER".

 

g.       Within the TPZ, there is to be no storage of materials, machinery or site office/sheds, nor is cement to be mixed or chemicals spilt/disposed of and no stockpiling of soil or rubble, with all Site Management Plans needing to acknowledge these requirements.

 

h.       In order to prevent soil/sediment being washed over their root systems, erosion control measures must be provided at ground level around the perimeter of the TPZ’s.

 

i.        If additional trunk or branch protection is required, this may be provided by way of wrapping layers of geo-textile, underfelt or Hessian, which shall be secured by lengths of evenly spaced hardwood timbers around their circumference, and are to be secured by 8 gauge wires or steel strapping at 300mm spacing. NO nailing to the trunk.

 

j.       Ground levels within the TPZ must not be altered by more than 200mm, and other than the approved works, there must be no other structures such as continuous strip footings, planter boxes or similar to be located in these areas, which are to remain as undisturbed, deep soil.

k.       Where roots are encountered which are in direct conflict with the approved works, they may be cut cleanly by hand (using only hand held tools, not machinery), with the affected area/s to be backfilled with clean site soil as soon as practically possible.

 

l.        The PCA must ensure compliance with all of these requirements, both on the plans as well as on-site during the course of construction, and prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate.

 

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

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, 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.

 

BASIX Requirements

14.     In accordance with Section 80A (11) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Clause 97A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that all of the required commitments listed in the relevant BASIX Certificate for this development are fulfilled.

 

An amended BASIX certificate must be consistent with the plans referenced in Condition 1 of this determination and a copy shall be submitted to Council and the Principal Certifying Authority prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development.

 

Stormwater Drainage

15.     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

16.     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

17.     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.

 

Dilapidation Reports

18.     A dilapidation report prepared by a professional engineer, building surveyor or other suitably qualified independent person must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencement of any demolition, excavation or building works, in the following cases:

 

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are proposed to be located within the zone of influence of the footings of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·           new dwellings or additions to dwellings sited up to shared property boundaries (e.g.  additions to a semi-detached dwelling or terraced dwellings),

·           excavations for new dwellings, additions to dwellings, swimming pools or the like which are within rock and may result in vibration and or potential damage to any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon an adjoining  premises,

·           as otherwise may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The report (including photographs) are required to detail the current condition and status of any dwelling, associated garage or other substantial structure located upon the adjoining premises, which may be affected by the subject works.  A copy of the dilapidation report is to be given to the owners of the premises encompassed in the report/s before commencing any works.

 

Construction Noise & Vibration Management Plan

19.     Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and NSW EPA Guidelines must be satisfied at all times.

 

Noise and vibration from any rock excavation machinery, pile drivers and all plant and equipment must be minimised, by using appropriate plant and equipment, silencers and the implementation of noise management strategies.

 

A Construction Noise Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the NSW EPA Construction Noise Guideline by a suitably qualified person, is to be implemented throughout the works.  A copy of the strategy must be provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of works on site.

 

Construction Site Management Plan

20.     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

21.     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.

 

Construction Traffic Management

22.     An application for a ‘Works Zone’ and Construction Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to Councils Integrated Transport Department, and approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee, for a ‘Works Zone’ to be provided in Oak Street for the duration of the demolition & construction works. 

 

The ‘Works Zone’ must have a minimum length of 12m and extend for a minimum duration of three months.  The suitability of the proposed length and duration is to be demonstrated in the application for the Works Zone.  The application for the Works Zone must be submitted to Council at least six (6) weeks prior to the commencement of work on the site to allow for assessment and tabling of agenda for the Randwick Traffic Committee.

 

The requirement for a Works Zone may be varied or waived only if it can be demonstrated in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (to the satisfaction of Council’s Traffic Engineers) that all construction related activities (including all loading and unloading operations) can and will be undertaken wholly within the site.  The written approval of Council must be obtained to provide a Works Zone or to waive the requirement to provide a Works Zone prior to the commencement of any site work.

 

23.     A detailed Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by Council, prior to commencement of any site work.

The Construction Site Traffic Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must include the following details, to the satisfaction of Council:

·       A description of the demolition, excavation and construction works

·       A site plan/s showing the site, roads, footpaths, site access points and vehicular movements

·       Any proposed road and/or footpath closures

·       Proposed site access locations for personnel, deliveries and materials

·       Size, type and estimated number of vehicular movements (including removal of excavated materials, delivery of materials and concrete to the site)

·       Provision for loading and unloading of goods and materials

·       Impacts of the work and vehicular movements on the road network, traffic and pedestrians

·       Proposed hours of construction related activities and vehicular movements to and from the site

·       Current/proposed approvals from other Agencies and Authorities (including NSW Roads & Traffic Authority, Police and State Transit Authority)

·       Any activities proposed to be located or impact upon Council’s road, footways or any public place

·       Measures to maintain public safety and convenience

·       Measures to minimize disruptions to neighbours access via the existing Right of Way

 

Public Utilities

24.     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.

 

25.     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.

 

Landscape Plan

26.     For a development of this type in this location, a landscape plan that has been prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of AILDM, AILA or equivalent) must be submitted to, and be approved by, the Certifying Authority/PCA, prior to the commencement of site works, and must detail the following:

 

a)       Location of existing trees and palms that are being retained as site features, as is described in the Tree Protection condition earlier in this report;

 

b)       A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity and any other details required to describe the works;

 

c)       A predominance of species that can withstand poor quality sandy soils and salt laden winds which are typical of these coastal conditions;

 

d)       A high quality selection and arrangement of decorative species throughout the site so as to assist with presentation of the development to the streetscape;

 

e)       Where species proposed for use have been identified as occurring naturally in the adjoining Gordons Bay Reserve, they must only be sourced directly from local provenance stock; or; alternative, non-endemic species must be selected. Council’s Community Nursery may assist with advice regarding species selection, and can be contacted on 9093-6250.

 

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

27.     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

28.     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

29.     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

30.     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

31.     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

32.     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

33.     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.

 

Support of Adjoining Land, Excavations & Retaining Walls

34.     In accordance with section 80 A (11) of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 and clause 98 E of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, it is a prescribed condition that the adjoining land and buildings located upon the adjoining land must be adequately supported at all times.

 

35.     All excavations and backfilling associated with the erection or demolition of a building must be executed safely in accordance with appropriate professional standards and excavations must be properly guarded and supported to prevent them from being dangerous to life, property or buildings.

 

Retaining walls, shoring or piling must be provided to support land which is excavated in association with the erection or demolition of a building, to prevent the movement of soil and to support the adjacent land and buildings, if the soil conditions require it.  Adequate provisions are also to be made for drainage.

 

Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring, piling or other measures are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

36.     Prior to undertaking any demolition, excavation or building work in the following circumstances, a report must be obtained from a professional engineer which details the methods of support for the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority:

 

·      when undertaking excavation or building work within the zone of influence of the footings of a dwelling or associated structure that is located on the adjoining land;

·      when undertaking demolition work to a wall of a dwelling that is built to a common or shared boundary (e.g. semi-detached or terrace dwelling);

·      when constructing a wall to a dwelling or associated structure that is located within 900mm of a dwelling located on the adjoining land;

·      as may be required by the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

The demolition, excavation and building work and the provision of support to the dwelling or associated structure on the adjoining land, must also be carried out in accordance with the abovementioned report, to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

 

Building Encroachments

37.     There must be no encroachment of any structures or building work onto Council’s road reserve, footway, nature strip or public place.

 

Gordons Bay Reserve

38.     No foreign matter, including, but not limited to: litter, cement wash, concrete, fill, soils, mulch, building materials, chemicals, petroleum-based products, paint, etc, shall be disposed of in, or placed in, or where they may enter, Gordons Bay Reserve. In all instances where such substances have been disposed of in, have been placed in, or have entered, the reserve, all affected areas shall be immediately repaired to the satisfaction of Council’s Natural Resources Coordinator.

 

39.     The applicant must maintain pedestrian access along Cliffbrook Parade (coastal walk) during the course of the proposed works.

 

Road / Asset Opening Permit

40.     A Road / Asset Opening Permit must be obtained from Council prior to carrying out any works within or upon a road, footpath, nature strip or in any public place, in accordance with section 138 of the Roads Act 1993 and all of the conditions and requirements contained in the Road / Asset Opening Permit must be complied with.

 

The owner/builder must ensure that all works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of a final occupation certificate for the development.

 

For further information, please contact Council’s Road / Asset Opening Officer on 9399 0691 or 9399 0999.

 

Tree Management

41.     Approval is granted for removal of the following trees from within the subject site, subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping:

 

a)       In the eastern half of the rear yard, along the eastern boundary, adjacent the northeast corner of the existing dwelling, the row of dwarf Magnolia’s and Lilly Pillies, and then further to their north, towards the northeast corner of the site, two mature Cocos Palms (which are exempt from Council’s DCP due to their low landscape value), as well as those Strelitzia nicholii (Giant Bird of Paradise) where necessary;

 

b)       In the western half of the rear setback, adjacent the northwest corner of the existing dwelling, the stand of four Howea fosteriana (Kentia Palms), where necessary, so as to accommodate the rear extension in this same areas as shown;

 

c)       To the northeast of those described in point ‘a’ above, the group of closely planted trees, being from east to west, a spindly Angophora costata (Sydney Red Gum), an Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly), a slightly larger Eucalyptus microcorys (Tallowood), then a Lophostemon confertus (Brush Box), due to a combination of their poor health and/or condition, reduced lifespan, and their unsuitability for retention given their large sizes at maturity and the fact that the building will now finish much closer to these trees than the existing footprint, which raises future safety concerns;

 

d)       The Schefflera actinophylla (Umbrella Tree) about halfway across the width of the rear/northern boundary, just east of the pedestrian entrance, must be removed as it is an invasive environmental weed, even though not directly affected by the works, so as to eliminate this weed source from the adjoining native bushland surrounding Gordons Bay;

 

e)       The Citrus just to its south, should the applicant wish, so as to accommodate more desirable plantings.

 

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

42.     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

43.     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.

 

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.

 

External Lighting

44.     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.

 

Street Numbering

45.     Street numbering must be provided to the front of the premises in a prominent position, in accordance with the Australia Post guidelines and AS/NZS 4819 (2003) to the satisfaction of Council.

 

In this regard, an Application must be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning, together with the required fee, for the allocation of appropriate street and unit numbers for the development.

 

Landscape Plan

46.     The PCA must ensure that landscaping at this site has been installed in accordance with the approved plan and any relevant conditions of consent, prior to the issue of any Occupation Certificate, with the owners to maintain it in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

47.     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.

 

48.     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.

 

Stormwater Drainage

49.     The applicant shall submit to the Principal Certifying Authority (PCA) and Council, certification from a suitably qualified and experienced Hydraulic Engineer confirming that the design and construction of the stormwater drainage system complies with Australian Standard 3500.3:2003 (Plumbing & Drainage- Stormwater Drainage) and the conditions of this development approval. The certification must be provided following inspection/s of the site stormwater drainage system by the certifying engineers and shall be provided to the satisfaction of the PCA.

       

        NOTE:

Council’s Development Engineer and Natural Resources Coordinator must be notified to arrange inspection of any completed drainage works within Gordons Bay reserve. The completed works and any required remedial action must be to the satisfaction of Council.  Please contact Council’s Development Engineer (9093-6881) and Natural Resources Coordinator (9093-6686) at the appropriate time.

 

New Strata Plans

50.     The ‘strata plan of consolidation/subdivision’ shall be shall be registered at NSW Land Property Information prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate.

 

Sydney Water Requirements

51.     A Section 73 Compliance Certificate, under the Sydney Water Act 1994 must be obtained from Sydney Water Corporation.  An Application for a Section 73 Certificate must be made through an authorised Water Servicing Coordinator.  For details, please refer to the Sydney Water web site www.sydneywater.com.au > Building and developing > Developing your Land > Water Servicing Coordinator or telephone 13 20 92.

 

Please make early contact with the Water Servicing Co-ordinator, as building of water/sewer extensions may take some time and may impact on other services and building, driveway or landscape design.

 

The Section 73 Certificate must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and the Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate or Strata Certificate, whichever the sooner.

 

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION/STRATA CERTIFICATE

The following conditions of consent must be complied with prior to the ‘Principal Certifying Authority’ issuing a ‘Subdivision certificate’ or ‘Strata Certificate’.

 

These conditions have been applied to satisfy the provisions of Council’s environmental plans, policies and codes for subdivision works.

 

52.     A formal application for a strata certificate is required to be submitted to and approved by the Council or an accredited certifier and all relevant conditions of this development consent are required to be satisfied.

 

53.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must be constructed.

 

54.     All floors, external walls and ceilings depicted in the proposed strata plan must correspond to those depicted in this development consent and construction certificate for the building.

 

55.     Details of critical stage inspections carried out by the principal certifying authority, together with any other certification relied upon, must be provided to Council or the accredited certifier.

 

56.     The applicant shall create suitable right of carriageway, easements for services and internal stormwater lines, as required. The applicant shall be advised that the minimum easement width for any internal stormwater line is 0.9 metres.

 

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      Prior to commencing any works, the owner/builder should contact Dial Before You Dig on 1100 or www.dialbeforeyoudig.com.au and relevant Service Authorities, for information on potential underground pipes and cables within the vicinity of the development site.

 

A8      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).

 

A9      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.

 

A10     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.

 

A11     Underground assets 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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

8 Cliffbrook Parade, CLOVELLY (DA/596/2016) - Executive Report 14 February, 2017.

 

 

 

 


8 Cliffbrook Parade, CLOVELLY (DA/596/2016) - Executive Report 14 February, 2017.

Attachment 1

 

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D18/17

 

Subject:             8 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/596/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/596/2016

Author:                   Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 


Proposal:                    Alterations, rear ground and first floor additions to the existing building and conversion of the building to a pair semi-detached dwellings including amendment to Strata Plan (variation to floor space ratio control).

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mr. Edward Slade

Owner:                        Owners of the Strata Plan no. 13633

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=8718667a-6eb2-43ba-bedc-5f5832297c79&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

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

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves conversion of the existing residential flat building into a pair of semi-detached dwellings including amendments to the strata plan. The scope of works includes the following:

 

Lower ground floor level:

·      New external access to storage room adjacent to unit no. 1

 

Ground floor level:

·      Consolidate units 2 and 3 into a single occupancy

·      Internal alterations to the new occupancy

·      Increase size of south-facing balconies (fronting Cliffbrook Parade)

·      Ground floor extension towards the northern boundary by an additional 780mm

·      New covered outdoor dining area at the rear of the premise

·      New sliding doors and window openings

·      New external stairs adjacent to the eastern side boundary 

·      New gate to the north-western corner of the premise and awning above lower ground floor entry to unit no. 1.

 

First floor level:

·      New first floor addition comprising bedroom, ensuite, study, deck and void space to living area below.

 

Amended Plans

 

The applicant was advised on the 16 November 2016 that the new upper level addition would contribute to significant view loss impacts from the immediately neighbouring dwelling at no. 5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly. The extent of the view loss impacts was the complete loss of a Wedding Cake Island which sits above the main ridge of the existing residential flat development. Subsequently, the application could not be supported in its current form.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on the 9 December 2016 in response to Council’s request. The proposed amendments are as follows:

 

Ground floor level:

·      Further increase in size of south-facing balconies.

·      Reduce ground floor extension towards the northern boundary from 780mm to 449mm.

·      Internal alterations including additional bedroom

·      Minor increase to covered outdoor dining area

 

First floor level: 

·      Reduce the size of the first floor level from 80sqm to 40sqm and be located on the eastern side of the building footprint. The first floor level consists of a bedroom, ensuite, study and deck.    

 

Re-notification of the amended plans is not required given the proposal will result in a reduction in the scope of building works and less impacts than originally proposed.

Further plans were received on the 31 January 2017 which included a full set of elevation plans in addition to a draft strata plan.

 

Permissibility

 

The proposed alterations and additions also involve amendments to the existing strata plan which include involve consolidating the number of units from three units to two units. Unit 1 will continue to occupy the lower ground floor unit and Units 2 and 3 the ground and first floor level of the dwelling. Council has recently received legal advice that a development should be defined as ‘semi-detached dwelling’ in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 because it contains two lots in the strata plan (in addition to areas provided for as common property), each dwelling is contained on its own lot and the two dwellings are attached to each other. The applicant submitted a draft strata plan on the 31 January 2017 which indicates that the premises will contain only two lots, provides common areas with access from Cliffbrook and Melrose Parade, will be located on its own lot and will continue to be attached to each other as per the existing building envelope. Therefore, the proposed development would be properly defined as a ‘semi-detached dwelling’. As per Clause 4.4(2A): Floor Space Ratios of the RLEP2012, the maximum permissible FSR of a semi-detached dwelling is 0.65:1 given the site has a site area between 450sqm and 600sqm. This is greater than the floor space ratio for a dual occupancy (attached) which has a maximum FSR of 0.5:1 as per the Floor Space Ratio Map. 

 

Development History

 

DA/246/2012: A development application was approved on the 27 April 2012 for internal alterations to the existing residential unit.

 

DA/255/2014: A development application was approved on the 12 August 2014 for alterations and additions to an existing residential flat building including internal reconfiguration, changes to window/door openings on elevations, new single storey additions to the northern side of Units 2 and 3 including new decks, new storage shed to Unit 2, new roof skylight windows and new awnings on eastern side of the building. 

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Cliffbrook Parade and is currently occupied by an existing part one/part two storey residential flat building comprising 3 units which operates under existing use rights. The site has a frontage along Cliffbrook Parade of 13.125 metres, a western (side) boundary depth of 38.28 metres and an eastern (side) boundary of 39.04 metres. The total area of the site is 506.6sqm. The site is also characterised by a significant fall of approximately 4.79 metres from the front (southern) to the rear (northern) end of the premise. The occupants enjoy pedestrian access through an existing right of way access via Melrose Parade. 

 

Neighbouring the property to the north and east is an existing three and five storey residential flat building, respectively. To the west is an existing part two/part three storey dwelling house and to the south is Cliffbrook Parade. The immediate located is characterised by a mixture of residential flat buildings, free standing dwelling houses and semi-detached 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:

 

·      5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly 

·      3/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      4/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      6/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      6 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

·      6/10-12 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

·      14/10-12 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly 

 

Issue

Comment

The proposal will result in view loss.

Refer to key issues section of this report for further details.

The proposal will result in privacy impacts.

Refer to key issues section of this report for further details.

The alterations and additions to the existing building are not in keeping with the neighbouring buildings.

The upper floor addition at the rear will appear two storeys in scale when viewed from the northern adjoining neighbours and will not contribute to any adverse visual bulk and scale impacts from Cliffbrook Parade given it is substantially setback from the front boundary. Notwithstanding this, the development will continue to respect the topography that is characterised by a fall from east to west and the new upper level addition will remain compatible with the building height plane of the neighbouring buildings at nos. 8 & 10-12 Cliffbrook Parade.

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

The proposed upper level addition will not contribute to any adverse overshadowing impacts to the neighbouring premises. The east facing windows of the western neighbour at no. 6 Cliffbrook Parade will receive solar access between the hours of 11am – 4pm. The west facing windows of the eastern neighbouring units at no. 10-12 Cliffbrook Parade will receive solar access between the hours of 8am – 12pm. The proposal will continue to comply with the numerical requirements in that the neighbouring dwellings will receive a minimum of three hours of solar access.   

The proposal will result in adverse acoustic noise impacts.

The siting and design of the development will minimise transmission between the subject site and the objectors premises. The window openings comply with the side setback requirement of the RDCP2013.  

The flat pitched roof will be used as a trafficable roof space.

There is no immediate access from the internal living areas to the upper level roof form and no balustrading has been provided to demonstrate compliance with the relevant BCA requirements. The roof is therefore considered to be non-trafficable.

The colourbond roof will reflect onto the objectors premises and will compromise the amenity of the neighbouring building. 

Noted. A condition of consent has been included that any metal roof sheeting is to be pre-painted to limit the level of reflection and glare.

The proposal is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal will continue to comply with a suite of building envelope controls including floor space ratios, building height, external wall height, setbacks, site coverage and soft landscaping. The proposal is considered to be an acceptable form of development with respect to the RLEP2012 and RDCP2013. 

 

One letter of support was received from the following address:

 

·      28 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

 

The applicant submitted amended plans on 9 December 2016 which sought to reduce the size of the first floor level from 80sqm to 40sqm. The application was not re-notified given the amended proposal constituted a reduction in the scope of works. An additional submission was received from the following address:

 

·      5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

 

Issue

Comment

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is applicable to the proposed development 

The State Environmental Planning Policy (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 does not apply to the subject site. Clause 49, subclause (2)(a) of the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) specifies that this part does not apply to a building that has been approved for subdivision under the Strata Schemes (Freehold Development) Act 1973. A subdivision certificate (SC/70/1977) was issued on the 13 November 1978 to strata title subdivision into 3 lots. In considering the above, the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 is not applicable to the proposed development.

The proposal is inconsistent with the objectives of the R2: Low Density Residential Zone and Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings of the RLEP2012 with respect to view loss impacts. 

 

Refer to key issues section of this report for further details.  

The applicant must surrender the previously approved development consent DA/255/2014.

Noted. A suitable condition of consent has been included that prior to the issue of a construction certificate, development consent DA/255/2014 and stamped plans must be surrendered to Council.

The Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards to the variation of the floor space ratio provisions is unsubstantiated given the significant view loss impacts from the objectors premises.  

The proposal complies with the maximum permissible floor space ratio for a ‘semi-detached dwelling’ as prescribed within the RLEP2012. No Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards is required to be submitted as part of the development application. Refer to key issues section of this report for further details relating to view loss impacts.

The west facing ground floor window openings will contribute to additional overlooking impacts to the objectors premises.

Refer to key issues section of this report for further details.

 

Key Issues

 

·      Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP2013)

 

Clause 3.2: Building Height

The new upper level addition will result in an external wall height of 7.05 metres which exceeds Council’s controls. The numerical requirement for external wall heights under the RDCP2013 prescribes a maximum wall height of 7 metres and therefore is non-compliant of 50mm. The departure is minor and will not contribute to any appreciable visual bulk and scale or amenity impacts from the neighbouring properties. The variation from the Council controls is negligible and will not result in any adverse environmental impacts with respect to solar access and overshadowing, loss of privacy and view loss impacts. Subsequently, in considering the merits of the proposal the variation from the numerical controls is acceptable and the proposal will comply with the objectives for external wall height. 

 

Clause 3.3.2: Setbacks

The RDCP2013 prescribes that a minimum side setback for a site with a frontage of more than 12 metres is 1200mm at the ground and first floor level and 1800mm for the second storey and above. As per Clause 3.3.2: Side Setbacks of the RDCP2013, the lower ground floor level constitutes a storey given that it extends above the ground level (existing) by more than 1.2 metres and therefore is considered to be the ‘ground storey’ and the ground floor level is the ‘first storey’. The upper level addition is deemed to be the ‘second storey’ and is setback 1200mm from the eastern side boundary, less than the minimum required 1800mm. The relevant objectives for side setbacks are as follows:

 

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

 

The non-compliance will affect views primarily from the rear adjoining neighbours within the residential flat building at no. 7 Melrose Parade. A number of objections have been received which indicate that the proposed development will compromise existing water views. An increase of the side setbacks to comply with the Council controls will slightly improve views to units 1, 3 and 4 of no. 7 Melrose Parade and will maximise the amount of views received from the adjoining neighbours which is inclusive of a headland view of Gordons Bay with a transition between land and water. The proposed upper floor level is suitably sized and an additional side setback will continue to provide an appropriate room dimension to meet the occupants needs as well as a high level of amenity into the bedroom, study and ensuite. Subsequently, it is reasonable in this instance to provide a compliant setback of 1800mm to comply with the Council controls. The following condition has been recommended as part of any consent:

 

·      The first floor level shall be setback a minimum of 1800mm from the eastern side boundary and comply with the minimum side setback requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The floor plan shall be reconfigured to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.      

 

Clause 5.3: Visual Privacy

The objectives for visual privacy require that development must ensure it minimises overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy. An objection has been received from the immediate western neighbour at no. 6 Cliffbrook Parade relating to overlooking impacts from the ground floor extension of the south-facing balcony towards the western boundary. The increase in size of the balcony will contribute to overlooking impacts when standing on the western edge of the deck into the ground floor living spaces of the adjoining dwelling at no. 6 Cliffbrook Parade. To ensure the proposal will remain consistent with the objectives for view sharing, the following condition has been recommended as part of any development consent:

 

·      The ground floor, south-facing deck shall maintain a similar setback from the western boundary as the existing deck to ensure a reasonable level of visual privacy is provided to the adjoining neighbours.

 

Notwithstanding the above, the new first floor south-facing deck will also not contribute to any adverse visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings, in particular to the western neighbour at no. 10-12 Cliffbrook Parade. The deck includes a blade wall along the eastern edge of the deck and will screen any direct overlooking to the west facing window openings. Any views to the adjoining habitable room windows will be largely oblique and will continue to provide a reasonable level of privacy.

 

Clause 5.5: View Sharing

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

 

·      3/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      4/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      6/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      6 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

·      14/10-12 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

 

The originally submitted plans received by Council on the 26 August 2016 included a first floor addition which extended along the full width of the existing building footprint and a length of 11.3 metres on the northern side of the building. Council carried out a height pole analysis on the 10 November 2016 of the proposed upper level addition and advised the applicant that the development application would not be supported given the proposal would result in adverse view loss impacts. The view impacts were mostly impacted from the immediately adjoining neighbour at no. 5 Melrose Parade (directly north-east of the subject site) which contributed to total view loss of Wedding Cake Island from the first floor south-facing living and deck areas. The resultant views are as per the images below:

 

IMG_0061Image 1: View from the first floor rear terrace (southern aspect) at no. 5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly.

 

IMG_0066

Image 2: View from the first floor rear living room window (southern aspect) at no. 5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly.

 

In response to Council’s concerns the applicant submitted amended plans on the 9 December 2016 which included a reduction in size of the upper level by approximately half and being sited on the eastern side of the building only. Council requested that further height poles be installed and the location and height of the poles be verified by a registered surveyor. To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken to the most affected neighbouring dwellings at nos. 5, 3/7 and 4/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140: 

 

1.   Quality of Views:

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

 

5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

The existing view incorporates a southerly water and iconic view above the existing hipped roof form of the subject site. The views at the second floor level include a whole view of Wedding Cake Island as well as headland views of Gordons Bay with a distinction between land and water. The headland has been slightly obscured by the existing roof elements to the immediate southern neighbour at no. 6 Cliffbrook Parade. The site also enjoys distant headland views to Maroubra.

 

The views at the first floor level consist of a whole view of Wedding Cake Island and partial headland view of Gordons Bay with a transition between land and water. Greater obscuring of the headland is evident due to the increased visibility of the roof planes of the southern neighbours at nos. 6 and 8 Cliffbrook Parade. The view of Wedding Cake Island is obscured by the existing trees and vegetation when viewed from the eastern side of the first floor deck and living areas.

 

3/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

The first floor level view incorporates a partial headland view of Gordons Bay with a transition between land and water. The view is between the side setbacks of nos. 8 and 10-12 Cliffbrook Parade and is obscured by the existing buildings.

 

4/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly 

The first floor level view incorporates a whole headland view of Gordons Bay with a distinct transition between land and water. The view sits just above the ridge of the existing building at no. 8 Cliffbrook Parade. The view is obscured by existing trees and vegetation.

 

2.   Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

The existing view is from a southerly aspect and is across the rear boundary of the dwelling. As indicated above, views from the front and rear boundaries are considered to be of greater significance in comparison to a side view. The second floor bedroom and adjoining deck receives both sitting and standing views of both Wedding Cake Island and a headland view of Gordons Bay. The first floor living room (including dining and kitchen) and adjoining terrace receives standing views of both wedding Cake Island and water views.

 

3/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

The existing view is visible from a southerly (rear) aspect from a first floor bedroom and visible from the rear of the site. The view is enjoyed in a standing position adjacent to the window opening. 

 

4/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

The existing view is visible from a southerly (rear) aspect from a first floor dining room and visible from the rear of the site. The view is enjoyed in a standing position adjacent to the window opening. 

 

3.   Extent of Impact:

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

 

5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly   

The qualitative impact of the resultant view loss is considered to be ‘moderate’. The view is considered to be highly valuable given the view is a whole view of Wedding Cake Island; is viewed from a first floor living and terrace area; is visible from a standing position and has a southerly (rear) aspect. Council officers have reviewed the installation of the height poles carried out on the 19 December 2016 which seek to reduce the size of the upper floor level. In carrying out the view loss assessment it should be noted that there is densely populated trees and vegetation which made it difficult to determine the location of the height poles. Council officers deduced from the images taken at the second floor level that the location of the height pole generally aligns with the supporting beam of the first floor pergola. The outlook east of the supporting column would contribute to some view loss impacts and such impacts would be more extensive the further east the outlook was obtained from. The proposed upper floor addition is still expected to obscure some views of Wedding Cake Island when viewed from a standing position on the eastern side of the terrace and the living area of the first floor level. The degree of view loss will be a portion of Wedding Cake Island to which it is no longer considered to be a whole view, but a partial view. However, the extent of view loss would also be minimised should the view aspect be obtained on the western side of the terrace area and will continue to receive whole views of Wedding Cake Island. It should also be noted that the deletion of the hipped roof element into a flat pitched roof element will also increase water views and water views as well as headland views of Gordons Bay from the neighbouring premises. In considering that the view loss affected areas will receive whole and partial views dependent on the outlook position, the extent of the view loss impact is deemed to be ‘moderate’.

 

Whilst there is existing trees and dense vegetation which interrupts the view corridor from the first floor terrace and easterly side of the living areas this is not a justifiable reason in which view loss does not occur. In Super Studio v Waverely Council [2004] NSWLEC 91 the application of landscaping as a privacy screening is given little weight in that it depends on a number of factors including ‘continued maintenance, good climatic conditions and good luck’ and that the same principles should apply with respect to view loss. There is no certainty that trees will remain a permanent fixture and may be removed over time which will open the existing view corridor. In considering these factors, the existing vegetation does not preclude the view loss impacts to be qualitative described as ‘moderate’.

 

Approved first floor plan of no. 5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly showing living/dining and outdoor terrace area.

 

IMG_0018

Existing rear (south) view from the first floor south-facing terrace area of the objectors premises at no. 5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly.

 

IMG_0012 kitchen

Existing rear (south) view from the first floor south-facing living room area of the objectors premises at no. 5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly.

 

Existing rear (south) view from second floor balcony showing the location of height poles.

 

IMG_0022

Existing rear (south) view from the first floor living area in which Wedding Cake Island is partially visible to the west of the supporting column.

 

3/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

The resultant view loss impacts are considered to be ‘negligable’.The extent of the view loss will be a portion of the headland view of Gordons Bay which extends above the hipped roof form of no. 8 Cliffbrook Parade.   

 

4/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

The resultant view loss impacts are considered to be ‘minor’. The extent of view loss will primarily be an existing water view between the building blocks of nos. 8 and 10-12 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly. The headland view is expected to still remain intact as a result of the new upper level addition. 

 

4.   Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

 

The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

5 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

The reasonableness of the proposal requires consideration on the proposed design scheme and demonstrating compliance with the relevant planning controls. The proposed development will continue to comply with a suite of building development standards of the RLEP2012 in that the development will remain compliant with the Floor Space Ratio control with an FSR of 0.62:1 (311.92sqm) less than the maximum permissible FSR of 0.65:1 (329.29sqm) and will remain below the maximum height of buildings at 8.15 metres (as measured from the top most point of the clerestory window) less than the 9.5 metre high requirement. With respect to the building envelope controls of the RDCP2013, suitable conditions of consent have been included to ensure the proposal will comply with the side setback of the upper floor level and the minor variation to the external wall height control by 50mm will have an indiscernible impact to the neighbouring buildings. Further, the proposal will also continue to demonstrate full compliance with the site coverage, soft landscaping, rear and front setbacks. In considering the proposal demonstrates compliance with the relevant building envelope controls, the next step is to assess ‘whether a more skillful design’ will continue to allow for a similar development potential whilst minimising the perceivable impacts from the adjoining neighbours. It should be noted that the applicant has submitted amended plans to reduce the size of the upper floor level in which the envelope is reduced to half of that of the original proposal and incorporates a substantial setback from the western side boundary by approximately 6.4 metres, which significantly exceeds the minimum of 1.8 metres and allows a south-easterly viewing corridor to be maintained to the affected neighbour.

 

It is unlikely that a more a skillful design would improve the degree of views. Redistributing the floor area of the first floor level further forward of the existing building envelope will contribute to greater view loss impacts of Wedding Cake Island than the current proposal. The only way to ensure complete preservation of views requires that the upper floor addition be deleted in its entirety. However this is an unreasonable planning outcome in considering the proposal demonstrates full compliance with the relevant building envelope controls and deletion of the upper floor level does not provide an appropriate balance in ensuring the proposal has the same development potential whilst reducing the amenity of the views. Subsequently, when observing the extent of the impact and the reasonableness of the proposed development, the reduced size of the upper floor addition is adequate. Given that whole views are still maintained within a reasonable portion of the principle living area and outdoor terrace this demonstrates that the proposal facilitates development whilst preserving an equitable amount of views for the surrounding properties as far as is practicable.

    

3/7 & 4/7 Melrose Parade, Clovelly:

The proposed view loss impacts are considered to be reasonable. As advised above, the proposed building envelope achieves full compliance with the relevant building envelope controls and will not obstruct any significant views. Suitable conditions of consent have been included to maximise water and headland views over Gordons Bay and will ensure equitable view sharing has been achieved.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed alterations and first floor additions to the existing building and conversion from a residential flat building to a pair of semi-detached dwellings and will not contribute to adverse view loss impacts from the neighbouring dwelling. The view sharing principles acknowledges that view sharing does not prescribe the total retention of all significant views and vistas, rather that the development has been ‘sensitively and skillfully’ designed to ensure a reasonable levels of views are being retained. Council officers have carefully considered the amended plans and have determined that the reduced first floor level scheme is appropriate in that it will continue to preserve whole views of Wedding Cake Island from the western portion of the living areas and the outdoor terrace and demonstrates that the proposal achieves a balance between facilitating reasonable development outcome and protecting views, where possible.   

 

The works at the lower ground and ground floor levels are considered to be minor and are acceptable in complying with Section 79(c) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended). The proposal will not result in any significant and unreasonable environmental impacts to the neighbouring developments.

 


 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/596/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing building and conversion of the building to a pair of semi-detached dwellings at No. 8 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly, 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.     Prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, Development Consent DA/255/2014 and stamped plans must be surrendered to Council.

 

b.     The ground floor, south-facing deck shall be setback 2.1 metres from the western boundary and maintain a similar setback as the existing deck to ensure a reasonable level of visual privacy is provided to the adjoining neighbours.

 

c.     The first floor level shall be setback a minimum of 1800mm from the eastern side boundary and comply with the minimum side setback requirements of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The floor plan shall be reconfigured to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.      

 

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

 


Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 8 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

Included under separate cover

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D22/17

 

Subject:             47 Maroubra Road, Maroubra (DA/650/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/650/2016

Author:                   Perry Head, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey attached dual occupancy, including swimming pools, landscaping and site works

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Sgammotta  Architects

Owner:                        M Rahardja & A Kurniawan

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councillors Seng, Stavrinos and Andrews.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of a new attached dual occupancy containing at ground level a garage, living and utility rooms and within the upper level four bedrooms and three bathrooms. A swimming pool is proposed within each rear yard.

 

The application since originally lodged has been amended to reduce the floor area to comply with the development standard.

 

Site

 

The site is on the southern side of Maroubra Road which is a residential area containing a mixture of semi-detached and free standing dwellings. The site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage of 14.63m to Maroubra Road, depth of 45.72m and an area of 669m² and is relatively level .

 

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

49 Maroubra Road Maroubra

 

-The proposal is out of keeping with the remaining buildings in the street.

 

 

-There are no other dwellings in this section of Maroubra Road which have been demolished, all the other development has consisted of alterations and additions to the dwelling.

 

-The site does not satisfy the minimum 15m width standard.

 

-The proposal will result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of their property with respect to overshadowing.

 

-The windows within the side of the dwelling will look onto their property.

 

 

 

 

-Approval would set a precedent for other redevelopment on the southern side of Maroubra Road.

 

 

 

The building reflects the desired future character of the locality as detailed in the relevant controls in the RLEP and RDCP

 

There is no restriction on the demolition of the existing building.

 

 

 

 

See Key Issues

 

 

The proposal satisfies the minimum solar access controls in the RDCP

 

 

A condition of consent is included to require the hallways windows to be modified in accordance with the DCP controls to mitigate direct overlooking into the adjoining properties.

 

Any subsequent development application to other properties will be the subject of the same relevant assessment criteria and assessed on its merits.

 

Key Issues

 

·      Minimum Frontage

 

The underlying purposed of the 15m minimum frontage control is to ensure lots have adequate width to provide suitably designed dwellings and to maintain the amenity of neighbouring properties. The width of the site is at 14.63m which is 0.37m less than the 15m minimum. Whilst the site width is less than the control the non-compliance in this instance is acceptable as there will not be any resultant adverse impact on either the amenity of the adjoining properties or the streetscape character. The proposed frontage is able to accommodate the proposed dwellings and provide a high level of amenity for each. The integration of the garages in the façade achieves a desirable streetscape outcome, whilst the compliant side setbacks, FSR and height of the proposed building will achieve the anticipated built form and an acceptable level of amenity for neighbouring 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.

 

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. 650/2016 for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a new two storey attached dual occupancy, at No. 47 Maroubra Road Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

                                                                                              

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D23/17

 

Subject:             81 Bream St, Coogee (DA/491/2014/A)

Folder No:                   DA/491/2014/A

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development to basement level including new car space, bike rack, storage garbage room, stairs, deletion of disabled lift, increase size of Unit 3 at ground floor level, additional unit comprising 2 x bedroom at first floor level, increase size of balconies at all residential levels and modifications to window openings.

                                      Original consent: Demolition of the existing building and construction of a part 3 and part 4 storey residential flat building containing 6x2 bedroom units and basement carpark for 6 vehicles, associated site and landscaped works.

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mr M Moss & Miss S Mueller

Owner:                        Mr M Moss & Miss S Mueller

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The Section 96 modification is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original proposal was determined by Council due to its value exceeding $2 million.

 

Proposal

 

Details of Current Approval:

Demolition of the existing building and construction of a part 3 and part 4 storey residential flat building containing 6x2 bedroom units and basement carpark for 6 vehicles, associated site and landscaped works

 

Details of Proposed Modification:

The applicant proposes modifications that include:

·    Basement level layout changes including new car space, bike rack, storage garbage room, stairs, deletion of disabled lift

·    A size increase to Unit 3 at ground floor level,

·    An additional unit 2 bedroom unit at first floor level,

·    An increase in the size of balconies at all residential levels and modifications to window openings.

 

Revisions

The applicant undertook the following revisions in response to concerns raised by the assessing officer and the Design Review Panel:

 

1.  The garbage area was fully enclosed with a planter box roof proposed and hinged door replaced with a sliding door.

2.  The letterbox position was shown.

3.  The area of landscaped surface was increased and some fencing deleted from the front yard.

4.  High level windows were proposed to all bedrooms on the western façade (for privacy protection).

5.  Movable aluminum privacy screens were proposed to the rear balconies.

6.  A planter box was reinstated, as per original approval, for the rear upper-level balcony.

7.  Planter boxes were proposed to western side elevation.

8.  A rooftop clerestory window was proposed.

 

The revisions were deemed to not require re-notification as they did not significantly increase the scale of the proposal and were within scope of proposal as it was originally notified. It is noted that clerestory window - which was added as part of these amendments - is setback from the building edges and not visually prominent.

 

Site

 

The site is located at 81 Bream Street, Coogee and is legally described as Lot 1 in DP 721395.  The site is located on the northern side of Bream Street between Arden Street and Hill Street.  The site has an area of 354.1m2 with a frontage of 9.145m frontage to Bream Street and a depth of 39.105m.  The site has a north-south orientation and is steeply sloped from the rear (northern boundary) to Bream Street.

 

Surrounding development is predominantly residential however density and built form varies significantly.

Section 96 Assessment:

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

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

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining and neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the DCP – Public Notification.  The application was also advertised in the local newspaper on 7 June 2016. As a result of this notification, no submissions were received.

 

Section 79C Assessment:

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

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

State Environment Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

SEPP: BASIX requirements came into force for all new dwellings, dual occupancies and some transient residential accommodation where development applications were lodged on or after 1 July 2004. A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

Clause 55A of the EP & A Regulation requires that a new BASIX certificate be lodged for amended plans or where a section 96 modification makes a material change to the BASIX commitments as originally approved.

 

The applicant had submitted a new BASIX certificate, but the certificate now longer relates to the proposal due to amendments during processing. Therefore the “BASIX Requirements” condition (no. 16) is recommended for amendment to require a new BASIX certificate be supplied with the construction certificate, and that construction plans match the requirements of the new BASIX certificate. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP:BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

State Environment Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality in Residential Apartment Development 

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height and containing four or more units. The proposal has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel. The Panel’s comments are included below.

 

Furthermore, written confirmation from a registered Architect is also required to be provided to Council confirming that the design is in accordance with the design quality principles of the SEPP.

 

A Design Verification Statement in accordance with the requirements of SEPP 65 has been received from Lawrence Liew of IDC Architects Pty Ltd, a registered Architect.

 

The Design Review Panel provided comments in February 2017 for the application. The applicant has made amendments to their design to generally response to the Design Review Panel comments.   

 

Design Review Panel Comments

This Section 96 seeks changes to change the internal planning and landscaped area.  The approval was for 6 units and now it is proposed that there will be 7 units.  A two storey ground floor unit to the north has been changed to two smaller single level units.

 

This application has been referred to the Panel without the applicant present.

 

It is unclear to the Panel who is the responsible registered architect.

 

It is supposed that amendments have been made to conform with the requirements of Council's DA consent and to satisfactorily comply to access, fire and parking controls.

 

The Panel has the following comments:

 

·      The quality of the pedestrian entry for the residence has been reduced as it is no longer open to the sky but rather directly through basement parking

 

Assessing Officer Comment

There are two pedestrian entries proposed. A second pedestrian entry remains open and connects the building directly with the street.

 

·      The new internal planning has quite small living / dining spaces for two-bedders

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The spaces comply with the Apartment Design Guideline requirements.

 

·      The hours of sunlight achieved in living rooms is not clear however it seems that 57% do not receive any winter sun in the living rooms.  The top floor living room could achieve winter sun access if a suitably design clerestory window was provided

 

Assessing Officer Comment

Additional diagrams have been provided which demonstrate that 2 of the 7 do not receive the required solar access. This is consistent with what was approved.

 

A north facing clerestory window is now proposed to the top floor living room.

 

·      The main stairs now appears to be sealed to the west with non-operable fire rated glass.  The amount of direct western sunlight should be determined and sun-shading provided.  This area will be under high heat load if not appropriately shaded.  Some ventilation for the stair and lobby spaces may be possible in the roof. A roof plan has not been provided

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The main stairs are now proposed to be open along the western side and to be fitted with angled timber sun shading devices. The non-operable windows have been removed. A roof plan has been provided. Stair lobby space ventilation is not present on the current approval.

 

·      The new fire egress stair at the north end of the carpark could be reconsidered to minimise its impacts on the private open space of Unit 2.  The bedroom deck should be shortened, the stair turned around and half flights used

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The applicant advises that the DRP’s suggested redesign would result in the loss of a car space which is undesirable. This opinion is concurred with.

 

·      Privacy screens to the north facing units should be reviewed for effectiveness.  It seems that occupants need to choose between bedroom or living room privacy.  Horizontal retractable blinds might prove more effective.  The top level should also be provided with external blinds as reliance on planting in a confined planter box area is not adequate

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The applicant now proposes horizontal retractable blinds in addition to screens. The rear windows of the top floor unit are proposed to feature privacy screens. Planter boxers were considered as suitable privacy protection within the original approval and are still proposed at the top level. 

 

·      The west elevation is particularly ordinary and more design input is encouraged even though there is a slim view of it from the street.

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The western elevation will not be prominently visible from the street. The applicant has now reinstated planter boxes in front of the staircase. This will articulate and provided additional interest to the elevation.

 

·      The artificial grass above the garbage room is not supported by the Panel and does not constitute landscaped area.  A good ground cover (native grasses or the like) should be provided and maintenance considered as per the other planters that are provided beyond balcony balustrades.

 

Assessing Officer Comment

A planter box is now proposed and this is considered to be suitable.

 

·      The stepping of the landscaped area to the rear should be more appropriately designed to maximise soft landscape and minimise hard landscape.  Footings need to be shown so that deep soil areas are able to be more accurately calculated.

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The applicant has confirmed that proposed deep soil areas are accurately shown. The design of the rear landscaped area is considered to be suitable given the site’s constraints and contours.

 

·      The top floor apartment needs sunshading and weather protection to the northern glazing and weather protection to the southern glazing.

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The top floor apartment design in relation to sunshading and weather protection is no different from that originally approved. However, privacy screens and horizontal retractable blinds to the northern elevation will provided sunshading.

 

·      Any skylights in the roof need to be considered for the possible summer heat loads.  Ventilating clerestory lights are preferred by the Panel.

 

Assessing Officer Comment

Skylights remain as approved. An additional ventilating clerestory window is proposed.

 

·      The applicant must confirm that the eastern wall which has been formed on site is only 220mm thick (as shown in the drawings) and the living room can be the dimensions shown. We note it is a retaining wall that reaches 7m in height.

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The applicant has confirmed these points.

 

·      The applicant must confirm that the western retaining wall which has been formed on site is only 200mm thick (as shown on the drawings) and the side passage can be the width shown on the drawings.

 

Assessing Officer Comment

The applicant has confirmed this point.

 

·      The Panel recommends that these issues be adequately addressed before any Section 96 consent is granted.

 

Assessing Officer Comment

As demonstrated above, the applicant has adequately addressed the issues raised by the Design Review Panel.

 

Apartment Design Guidelines

An assessment has been carried out in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide against the design criteria requirements. The proposal does not result in any additional non-compliances with the Apartment Design Guidelines.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The site is zoned R3 Low Density Residential under the RLEP 2012 and the proposal is permissible with Council's consent. The proposed modification is not inconsistent with the aims of RLEP 2012 and the specific objectives of the zone in that the proposal will generally preserve the amenity of the surrounding environment and will protect the amenity of adjoining residents.

 

The following development standards of the RLEP 2012 are relevant to the proposal:

 

Clause 4.3 – Height of Buildings

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

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

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

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

(2)  The height of a building on any land is not to exceed the maximum height shown for the land on the Height of Buildings Map.

(2A)  Despite subclause (2), the maximum height of a dwelling house or semi-detached dwelling on land in Zone R3 Medium Density Residential is 9.5 metres.

 

Comment:

The maximum building height for the site is 12m. The approved height of 11.5m is proposed to remain unchanged.   

 

Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio

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

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

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

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

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

(2)  The maximum floor space ratio for a building on any land is not to exceed the floor space ratio shown for the land on the Floor Space Ratio Map.

(2A)  Despite subclause (2), the maximum floor space ratio for a dwelling house or semi-detached dwelling on land in Zone R2 Low Density Residential or Zone R3 Medium Density Residential is not to exceed:

a)   if the lot is more than 300 square metres but not more than 450 square metres—0.75:1, or

b)   if the lot is more than 450 square metres but not more than 600 square metres—0.65:1, or

c)   if the lot is more than 600 square metres—0.6:1.

(2B)  Despite subclause (2), there is no maximum floor space ratio for a dwelling house or semi-detached dwelling on a lot that has an area of 300 square metres or less.

 

Comment:

The proposed modification involves a floor space ratio (FSR) of 1.52:1, this compares with the approved ratio of 1.37:1 or the permitted ratio of 0.9:1 for the site.

 

The proposed FSR is not inconsistent with the relevant objectives of Clause 4.4 – Floor Space Ratio - of the RLEP 2012 and will result in no significant adverse impacts it terms of residential amenity or the character and amenity of the streetscape. The additional floor space is proposed partly within a void area and the footprint of the building will not be significantly increased, no increase in building height or wall height is proposed and the scale and external built form will not be significantly larger than that approved when viewed from the surrounding area by the casual observer.

 

The built from and scale will be comparable to the other buildings within the immediate context and the building will be lower and comparable in scale to that approved on the adjoining site to the east, No. 83 Bream Street (DA/809/2010) – see fig. 2 below. The exposed side elevation is to feature adequate articulation and balcony openings articulate the front and rear of the building. 

 

Solar access to adjoining sites will generally be maintained due to the comparable external building bulk and the north-south orientation of the site. Adequate screening is proposed – including high level windows, windows screens and privacy screens and planter boxes to decks – to preserve the privacy of adjoining sites. 

 

Figure 2. Photomontage showing the proposed design in relation to the approved development on the adjoining site, No. 83 Bream Street (white building on the right).

 

Car Parking

 

The Council’s Development engineer makes the following comments:

 

Parking Comments

Parking Requirements for the development have been assessed as per the rates specified in Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013 Part B7 which specifies the following applicable parking rates relevant to the proposal;

·      1.2 spaces per 2 bedroom unit

·      1 visitor space per 4 units (but none where development is less than 4 dwellings)

 

The Section 96 application proposes an additional 2 bedroom unit hence the development will now comprise of 7 x 2 bedroom units.

 

Parking Required      = 7 x 1.2 + 7/4 (visitor)

                            = 10.15

                            = say 10 spaces

 

Parking Provided      = 7 spaces

 

Parking Deficiency    = 3 spaces

 

The parking deficiency has only marginally increased from the original proposal (2.7 spaces) and when taking into account the existing parking shortfall on the site for the previous dual occupancy (4 spaces), the parking shortfall will actually decrease by 1 space as a result of the proposal.

 

It should also be noted that the shortfall only relates to the provision of visitor parking since every unit has been allocated a carspace. Development Engineering will therefore not object to the proposed parking provision in this instance.

Parking Layout

The carpark layout appears to generally comply with the requirements of AS 2890.1 and no objections are raised.  It is noted the carspaces adjacent and parallel to the central aisle are 6.1m in length which will not comply with condition 3 in the development consent however as the aisle width has now been widened in the S96 plans, the carspace length of 6.1m achieves compliance with AS 2890.1 and condition 3a can now be deleted. Condition 3b relates to the old configuration of the lift access and is no longer required. It may also be deleted.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

The proposed modification to the approved development has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the RLEP and Council policies and plans as well as in regard to Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended. The proposed modifications are considered to result in development that is substantially the same nature as previously approved works. The modified development will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts upon the amenity and character of the locality and will be not inconsistent with the relevant objectives and criteria of the LEP 2012 and the RCDCP 2013.

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/491/2014/A by including new car space, bike rack, storage garbage room, stairs, deletion of disabled lift, increase size of Unit 3 at ground floor level, additional unit comprising 2 x bedroom at first floor level, increase size of balconies at all residential levels and modifications to window openings.  The consent is modified in the following manner:

 

·        Amend Condition 1 to read:

“Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

Plan: Location

A2001 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Plan: Site Analysis

A2002 DA 01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Plan: Basement

A2201 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Plan: Ground

A2202 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Plan: Level 01

A2203 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Plan: Level 02

A2204 DA02

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

27/10/14

3/11/14

Plan: Level 03

A2205 DA02

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

27/10/14

3/11/14

Plan: Roof

A2206 DA02

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

27/10/14

3/11/14

Plan: Area GFA

A2301 DA02

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

27/10/14

3/11/14

Plan: Area Private Open Space

A2302 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Plan: Area Landscape

A2303 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Shadows: June 21 9:00 (#83 existing)

A2401 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Shadows: June 21 12:00 (#83 existing)

A2402 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Shadows: June 21 3:00 (#83 existing)

A2403 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Shadows: June 21 9:00 (#83 DA approved)

A2404 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Shadows: June 21 12:00 (#83 DA approved)

A2405 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Shadows: June 21 3:00 (#83 DA approved)

A2406 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Elevation: North (No. 83 DA approved)

A3001 DA01

 

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Elevation: North (No. 83 existing)

A3002 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Elevation: South (No. 83 DA approved)

A3003 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Elevation: South (No. 83 DA existing)

A3004 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Elevation: East

A3005 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Elevation: West

A3006 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Section: A

A3101 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Section: B

A3102 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Section: C

A3103 DA02

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Photomontage (#83 Existing)

A9001 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

27/10/14

3/11/14

Photomontage (#83 DA approved)

A8002 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

Finishes

A9001 DA01

Alex Phegan Pty Ltd

11/07/14

25/07/14

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

560167M_02

31 October 2014

3 November 2014

 

As amended by the Section 96 “A” plans and supporting documentation listed below:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

S96 002

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 04.2

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 05.2

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 06.2

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 07.2

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 08.2

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 09.2

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 10.2

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 11 to 13

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

S96 22

Attena Group Pty Ltd

15 Feb. 2017

 

Only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application, except as may be amended by the following conditions and as may be shown in red on the attached plans:.”

 

·        Delete Condition No. 3

 

·        Amend Condition 16 to read:

BASIX Requirements

In accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Regulation 2000, a new BASIX Certificate and associated documentation must be submitted to the Certifying Authority with the Construction Certificate application for this development.

 

The required commitments listed and identified in the BASIX Certificate are to be included on the plans, specifications and associated documentation for the proposed development, 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.”

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D24/17

 

Subject:             32 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly (DA/773/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/773/2016

Author:                   Josh Owen, Planning Consultant - APP Corporation Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house and a swimming pool at the rear of the site

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Smith & Tzannes

Owner:                        Mr S R Taylor & Mrs J M Taylor

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=a2c17fab-0405-4abd-ac23-3ba042bbbf26&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee Meeting for consideration as a Council employee owns properties neighbouring the subject site.

 

Proposal

The proposal seeks to demolish the existing dwelling house and erect a new part two (2), part three (3) storey dwelling house. Specific elements of the proposed development include:

·      Garaging for vehicles, off the Pepper Lane frontage;

·      Provision of a lower-ground service and rumpus area;

·      Ground level bedrooms;

·      First floor living areas;

·      A lift to provide access to the basement from the upper levels; and

·      A swimming pool in the rear garden, accompanied by landscaping.

 

Site

The subject site is located on the northern side of Cliffbrook Parade, the pathway opposite Gordon Bay. It has a 13.1m frontage to Pepper Lane on the north and a 13.6m frontage to Cliffbrook Parade, on the south. With side boundaries of 32.3m and 35.8m, the site is trapezoidal in shape with a total area of 442.6m². Vehicular access is provided via Pepper Lane, which is a small laneway that extends off Thorpe Street. The site is legally identified as Lot 1 in DP 126828. For the purposes of this report, Pepper Lane is the front boundary.

 

The site slopes away from the Pepper Lane frontage, towards the southern boundary. No significant vegetation is present on the site other than some small bushes along the southern boundary. Existing development is a detached, single storey dwelling house shown in Figure 2 & 3.

 

Figure 2: Front of existing dwelling house, as viewed from Pepper Lane.

 

Figure 3: Rear of existing dwelling house, as viewed from Cliffbrook Parade.

 

To the north of the site is an older-style, two storey residential flat building at 3 Thorpe Street. This building has both ground floor and first floor flats that overlook the subject site and Gordons Bay. Beyond this, at No. 1 Thorpe Street is a similar building that has an east-facing balcony.

 

To the east is a two storey dwelling house at 34 Cliffbrook Parade. The site is considerably lower than the subject site, at approximately 2m.

 

South of the site is Gordon’s Bay, and an expansive view to the Coogee Headland and Wedding Cake Island.

 

To the west of the site, a free standing dwelling house is located at No. 30 Cliffbrook Parade. The dwelling has a large deck and private open space, which has a similar front setback to the proposed dwelling. It also has uninterrupted, expansive views of the coastal region.

 

Figure 4: Subject site and surrounding area.

 

Submissions

The owners of adjoining properties 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 Thorpe Street, Clovelly

·      33 Melrose Parade, Clovelly

·      8 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly;

·      30 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly;

 

Units 2, 6 and 8 - 3 Thorpe Street

 

Issues

Details

Assessor’s Comments

Height generally excessive.

The height will obstruct views of Gordons Bay, and could be readily reduced without affecting the proposed living space.

 

This concern has been noted by the assessor. A View Impact Assessment was conducted in response to this and is provided in Attachment A of this report.

 

Ceiling heights unnecessary.

It is noted that the proposed suspended ceiling heights on the upper ground level and level 1 are 2700mm. With the an additional 350mm for services (allowing 150mm for concrete slab), the floor below level 1 is 3050mm in height and could be reduced, as the minimum celling height for habitable rooms is 2400mm. 

 

The Randwick DCP requires all rooms to have a minimum ceiling height of 2700mm. The proposed development complies with the control and the overall storey height is consistent with a typical residential dwelling form.

 

Large skylight unnecessary.

The large projecting skylight is excessive and further contributes to view loss. A smaller, dome-style installation would be preferable.

 

As acknowledged in the View Impact Assessment, the clerestory window/ skylight is to ensure adequate solar access is provided to the primary living areas.

 

Not in line with controls related to Foreshore Scenic Protection Area (FSPA).

The development will block views of the foreshore and is non-compliant with the provision that states ‘the development is located and designed to minimise its visual impact on public areas of the coastline, including views to and from the coast.’

 

This control is only relevant for public domain views. From this location, the proposal is unlikely to affect views of the public domain. The View Impact Assessment provides a detailed assessment and consideration of all impacts to existing views and vistas.

 

 

33 Melrose Parade

 

Issues

Details

Assessor’s Comments

Height restriction exceeded.

The new building will obscure coastal views. The new structure exceeds the 9.5m limit on the South Plan View, in the drawings. The sky-light is identified as the reason for this non-compliance.

 

With a maximum height of 8.54m, the proposal is less than the maximum 9.5m overall Height of Building Development Standard.

 

Privacy

The height of level 1 means that the rumpus room will look into the adjoining properties behind. It is requested that the partial screen is extended the full length of the room, or green screening be provided where appropriate. It is further noted that the proposed garage should make screening easy, as the applicant would be able to create a private outdoor space on the roof of the garage.

 

As the distance between the rear boundary of the subject site and that of the objector is approximately 28m, no considerable privacy impacts are anticipated. The rumpus room window will facilitate casual surveillance of Pepper Lane and provides northerly light to key living areas.

 

 

 

8 Cliffbrook Parade

 

Issues

Details

Assessor’s Comments

Location of pool.

The location of the swimming pool is too prominent. It will be visible to neighbours and users of the coastal walk. People using the pathway may also be splashed as a result of the pool’s positioning.

 

The swimming pool is located as far away from neighbouring properties as possible. A minor non-compliance with the required setback was sought to facilitate this.

 

It is considered unlikely that the water from the swimming pool will spill onto the coastal walk given the separation distance to the pathway.

 

Integrity of cliff.

The garden sits close to the cliff edge, and care must be taken during its construction to ensure the integrity of the cliff. 

 

A consulting geotechnical engineer has been engaged by the applicant, and a report provided indicating that the proposal is able to safety engineered.

 

 

30 Cliffbrook Parade

 

Issues

Comments

Assessor’s Comments

Setbacks

Even though Cliffbrook Parade is technically the site’s primary street frontage, it is not the main means of site access. As such, the front setback (Cliffbrook Parade) needs to comply with the ‘average’ setback of adjoining dwellings. This is not preferable, as this may block neighbouring views.

 

The primary open space of surrounding residences is generally situated in the southern portions of lots, closest to the coast. The development reflects this character, and is in line with the footprints of surrounding dwellings.

Balcony Footprint

As a result of the above issue, the balconies will extend beyond the footprint of the existing dwelling (and façade of the adjoining property) and create adverse impacts on amenity, privacy and ocean views.

 

The level of view loss associated with the balconies is considered very minor in nature.

Not in line with recent approvals.

The proposal fails to recognise an important element of the existing built form in the area, where recently-approved two-storey dwellings and 1st floor additions do not extend beyond the ground floor footprint of existing residences.

 

As illustrated in the architectural plans, the proposed residence only extends a short distance over the original building footprint, approximately 1m. This does not result in any significant view loss or other negative effects to residential amenity.

View loss.

The proposal does not encourage view sharing and will obstruct views, and is not compliant with DCP Section 5.6.

 

The effects of view loss have been considered as part of the View Impact Assessment.  

Views and solar access from lower floors.

The eastern facing views and access to natural light from the ground and first floor windows will be lost with any two-storey construction. As this type of dwelling is permissible, the owners are not seeking to redress this impact.

Noted.

Amendment.

The owners request the following amendment to help meet their concerns:

1.  The upper ground floor balcony balustrade to be relocated to the east, perhaps on to the louvres to the ensuite window.

2.  The western side of the first floor balcony (including its protruding slab) to be relocated approximately 1m eastwards.

The first floor balcony has been altered as requested, and is now positioned to the satisfaction of the neighbour. This aspect of the submission has be nullified.

DA Inconsistencies

The owner would like to clarify the following points, in response to incorrect statements in the SEE relating to the same matter:

1.  30 Cliffbrook Parade has not been recently developed and has occupied the same footprint for 17 years.

2.  The primary area of open space for 30 Cliffbrook Parade is on the southern side of the site.

3.  On pages 20, 25 and 29 of the SEE there appears to be confusions when describing the front and rear of the site.

4.  Contrary to the SEE, the excavation level will be significant. It is requested Council impose conditions requiring the preparation of a dilapidation report.

5.  The air-conditioning location may cause acoustic impacts and should be relocated to the lower ground floor, perhaps near the pool.

 

These points were noted by the assessor and raised with the applicant. Suitable conditions are included in relation to a dilapidation report and acoustic compliance for any air conditioning.

 

The owner of units within 3 Thorpe Street, and the owners of 30 Cliffbrook Parade also requested that the appointed assessors undertaken site inspections to examine the extent of the concerns raised. On the 23rd of December 2016, APP planning staff attended meetings at both properties, observed the issues and took photos of existing view corridors and vistas.

 

Key Issues

 

1.       VIEW IMPACT ANALYSIS

This view impact assessment utilises the View Sharing Planning Principles established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This method has since been used in cases such as Rose Bay Marina Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council and anor [2013] NSWLEC 1046, and is therefore recognised as the standard interpretation of view sharing controls.

 

This assessment makes reference to two affected units:

·      The upper unit (6/ 3 Thorpe Street); and

·      The lower unit (2/ 3 Thorpe Street).

 

The upper unit currently enjoys an expansive coastal view of Gordons Bay, while the lower unit has two small view corridors on either side of the current dwelling’s roof. A view impact diagram was required for the upper unit, as the level of view loss would be potentially reduced by considered design. It was considered that the lower unit would be significantly affected by any proposed two storey form, and as such a view impact diagram was not requested from this particular dwelling.

 

TABLE OF PRINCIPLES

 

1. Assessment of Views Affected

Are water views affected? If so they are to be considered more valuable than land views.

Water views are affected as part of this proposal.

Are there any iconic views (e.g. Opera House)? If so they are to be valued more highly. 

The upper unit has a view to Wedding Cake Island; however this will be maintained as part of the proposal. The lower unit has views to the Coogee Headland, which will be largely obstructed by a two-storey proposal.

Is the view whole or partial? If it is whole, it is more valuable. 

The upper unit has a whole view of the horizon, while the lower unit has a partial view of the horizon. Elements of the coastal environment are obstructed by existing development, affecting both units.

2. Assessment of Boundaries Affected

Is the potential obstruction affecting views from the side or front/rear boundaries? More consideration should be given to the maintenance of front/rear views.

The view is across a side boundary. The affected building is a corner allotment with a side boundary to Pepper Lane. The views are oblique views across the subject site. 

Is the view a sitting or standing view? More consideration should be given to the maintenance of standing views.

All affected views are standing. 

3. Assessment of Extent of Impact

Is the impact compromising views in bedrooms or living areas? Views from living areas should be given preference.

The proposed development’s affects on views has been assessed from the living area of Unit 6. Views from Unit 2 were identified from a bedroom.

Would the view loss be classified qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating? Moderate and above should be given more consideration.

The view loss from the upper unit would be classified as minor to moderate. The horizon and the view corridor to Wedding Cake Rock will both be retained. The lower unit would experience severe view loss, however would retain a view corridor between Nos. 30 and 32 Cliffbrook Parade. Easterly coastal views currently enjoyed by the unit block will not be affected.

4. Reasonableness of Proposal

Does the development comply with all relevant planning controls? If it does, view losses are to be considered to be more reasonable.

 

 

The development complies will all relevant planning controls, relating to height and bulk. Setbacks on the western side achieve the required 120mm and therefore maintain the view corridor.

With a complying proposal, would a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours?

 

If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

No significant options for variance exist. Removing the skylight would reduce the levels of solar access to the first floor living areas and affect residential amenity, and not have any effect on views from Unit 2.

 

Assessment of Views Affected

Acceptable

Impacts to water views are acknowledged, however, the development maintains partial views to the Ocean and a whole view to Wedding Cake Island.

Assessment of Boundaries Affected

Acceptable

The impacts are assess from a standing position, and partial views to the ocean and Wedding Cake Island are maintained.

Assessment of Extent of Impact

Acceptable

Key view corridors from living areas of Unit 6 will be partially maintained. Similar easterly coastal views will also be available from the kitchen window.

Reasonableness of Proposal

Acceptable

The development is compliant with key controls, and cannot be easily varied.

 

It is determined that the view impacts of the proposed development are reasonable and moderate overall. It is noted that whole views, water views and standing views will be affected, and that Unit 2 will experience severe southerly view loss.

 

Notwithstanding these issues, the proposed development has been designed within the controls applying to the site, and has merit in terms of residential amenity and the architectural quality of the design. The proposed skylight will facilitate solar access to a lot that already has poor credentials in this area (see attached diagrams), and is therefore an important element of the design. Furthermore, it is likely that any proposed two storey form on the site would significantly obstruct views currently enjoyed by Unit 2 and that this impact is unavoidable. Consequently, no further amendments to the design are warranted, and the development is considered worthy of support. 

 

32 Cliffbrook Pde_Photo Overlay_top unit_2nd living or bedroom

Figure 1: View from living room window of upper unit. (Unit 6).

LowerUnit_Living2

Figure 2: View from living room window of lower unit (Unit 2).

 

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 dwelling is generally compliant with the relevant assessment criteria, as outlined in s 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and complies with LEP development standards. While not all aspects align with the controls stipulated in the DCP, the proposed variations produce better planning outcomes, and allow the proposed form to align more closely with the character of the area. The specific issue of coastal views is a key consideration with this particular development. While view loss will be experienced by the units at No. 3 Thorpe Street, a View Impact Assessment has established that these impacts are reasonable in the circumstances of the case. Impacts to the views from the Unit 2 bedroom window are unavoidable since a two storey dwelling form is permitted on the subject site. Otherwise, the dwelling will have limited effects upon the amenity of surrounding properties or the quality of the coastal environment. 

 

 

 

 

 

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. DA/773/2016 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house, at No. 32 Cliffbrook Parade, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

APP  Cliffbrook_View Impact Assessment DA/773/2016 32 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

 

2.

DA Compliance Report - 32 Cliffbrook Parade, CLOVELLY 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


 

APP  Cliffbrook_View Impact Assessment DA/773/2016 32 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly

Attachment 1

 

 

View Impact Assessment

 

Property: 32 Cliffbrook Parade, Clovelly.

 

This view impact assessment utilises the View Sharing Planning Principles established in Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140. This method has since been used in cases such as Rose Bay Marina Pty Limited v Woollahra Municipal Council and anor [2013] NSWLEC 1046, and is therefore recognised as the standard interpretation of view sharing controls.

 

Local Government Area: Randwick Local Government Area.

 

Statutory Grounding:

·    Randwick Development Control Plan 2012, Clause 5.6 (Part C1).

 

This assessment makes reference to two affected units:

·    The upper unit (6/ 3 Thorpe Street); and

·    The lower unit (2/ 3 Thorpe Street).

 

The upper unit currently enjoys an expansive coastal view of Gordons Bay, while the lower unit has two small view corridors that are obstructed by the current dwelling. A view impact diagram was required for the upper unit, as the level of view loss would be considerably and potentially avoidable through considered design. It was considered that the lower unit would be significantly affected by any proposed two storey form, and as such a diagram was not requested for this particular dwelling.

 

TABLE OF PRINCIPLES

 

1. Assessment of Views Affected

Are water views affected? If so they are to be considered more valuable than land views.

Water views are affected as part of this proposal.

Are there any iconic views (e.g. Opera House)? If so they are to be valued more highly. 

The upper unit has an iconic view to Wedding Cake Island; however this will be maintained as part of the proposal. The lower unit has views to the Coogee Headland, which will be largely obstructed as part of this proposal.

Is the view whole or partial? If it is whole, it is more valuable. 

The upper unit has a whole view of the horizon, while the lower unit has an obstructed view of the horizon. Elements of the coastal environment are obstructed by existing development, affecting both units.

2. Assessment of Boundaries Affected

Is the potential obstruction affecting views from the side or front/rear boundaries? More consideration should be given to the maintenance of front/rear views.

The view is from the side boundary. However the affected building sits on a corner block, which has a road frontage in the direction of the scenic view.

Is the view a sitting or standing view? More consideration should be given to the maintenance of standing views.

All affected views are standing. 

3. Assessment of Extent of Impact

Is the impact compromising views in bedrooms or living areas? Views from living areas should be given preference.

The proposed development would compromise views from the living area.

Would the view loss be classified qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating? Moderate and above should be given more consideration.

The view loss from the upper unit would be classified as moderate, A large section of the horizon and the view corridor to Wedding Cake Rock will both be retained. The lower unit would experience severe view loss. Easterly coastal views currently enjoyed by the unit block will not be affected.

4. Reasonableness of Proposal

Does the development comply with all relevant planning controls? If it does, view losses are to be considered to be more reasonable.

 

 

The development complies will all relevant planning controls, i.e. those relating to height and bulk.

With a complying proposal, would a more skilful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours?

 

If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

No significant options for variance exist. Removing the skylight would reduce the levels of solar access to the first floor living areas and affect residential amenity.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Assessment of Views Affected

Not Acceptable

Water views, iconic views and whole views of the horizon would be affected as part of this proposal.

Assessment of Boundaries Affected

Not Acceptable

The residential flat development has a road frontage in the direction of the view, and view is one observed while standing.

Assessment of Extent of Impact

Acceptable

While it will impact living areas, key view corridors will be partially maintained. Similar easterly coastal views can also be obtained from the kitchen window.

Reasonableness of Proposal

Acceptable

The development is compliant with key controls, and cannot be easily varied.

 

It is determined that the view loss impacts of the proposed development are reasonable and moderate overall. It is noted that whole views, water views and standing views will be affected, and that the lower unit will experience severe southerly view loss. Notwithstanding these issues, the proposed development has been designed within the controls applying to the site, and has merit in terms of residential amenity and the architectural quality of the design. Furthermore, it is likely that any proposed two storey form on the site would significantly obstruct views currently enjoyed by the lower unit and that this impact is unavoidable. The proposed skylight will facilitate solar access to a lot that already has poor credentials in this area (see attached diagrams), and is therefore an important element of the design. Consequently, no further amendments to the design are warranted, and the development is considered worthy of support. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHED FIGURES:

 

Above: view from living room window of upper unit. 

Above: view from living room window of lower unit.

 

 

Above: 8am solar access diagrams.

 

 

Above: 12pm solar access diagram.

 

 

Above: 4pm solar access diagram.

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D25/17

 

Subject:             5 Dangar Street, Randwick (DA/713/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/713/2016

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Construction of garage with first floor studio above fronting laneway (Heritage Conservation Area)

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Ms A Goldberg

Owner:                        Ms A Goldberg

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=5a5e23f3-3ec3-4cc2-80d3-5e86d778a92f&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 is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the applicant is has a personal relationship with a Randwick City Council employee.

Proposal

 

The application proposes the construction an open form carport with a studio apartment on the first floor. The height of the building is 5.9m and has a pitched roof with dormer windows oriented to the north.

 

It is noted that the original plans submitted with the application proposed a garage on the ground floor and studio above. The site is flood prone and during the assessment of the application, council’s Development Engineer highlighted a non-compliance with the floor level of the proposed garage. Amended plans were submitted proposing an open form carport with the studio above to address the flooding issue. This report provides an assessment of the amended plans.

 

Site

 

The site is known as No. 5 Dangar Street, Randwick. It is 211.5m2 and contains a one and two storey semi-detached dwelling house fronting Dangar Street. The site has rear lane access from Dangar Lane and is located within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area. The existing dwelling on the site is not heritage listed nor is it a contributory building to the conservation area.

 

 

Image 2: Subject site at Dangar Lane

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      3 Dangar St, RANDWICK

·      7 Dangar St, RANDWICK

·      14 Wentworth St, RANDWICK

·      16 Wentworth St, RANDWICK

 

Issues

Comments

Overshadowing to No.7 Dangar St

The shadow cast from the building complies with the DCP controls for solar access to neighbouring properties. Part of the rear yard of No. 7 will be in shadow at 8am during mid-winter, more than 50% will receive direct sunlight at midday and by 4pm the shadow is cast over Dangar Lane.

The building complies with the DCP controls and the extent of overshadowing is considered reasonable given the pattern of development in the area.

Privacy impacts

The east facing windows have sill heights above 1.6m to reduce overlooking, The north facing windows are dormer roof windows and neighbouring properties cannot be viewed from them.

Tree removal

No significant trees are proposed for removal.

Heritage impact on Wentworth St streetscape

The proposed building will not be seen from Wentworth Street. Council’s Heritage Planner has reviewed the plans and raises no objection.

Bulk of proposal

The amended plans have reduced the height of the building to 5.9m to comply with the DCP height requirement. The length of the building is limited to that required for a single car and is considered appropriate.

 

The amended plans proposing a carport with studio above were not re-notified as the issues raised in the submissions primarily related to the proposed studio.

 

Key Issues

 

SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009

A secondary dwelling is permissible with consent in Zone R2 Low Density Residential in accordance with SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 (ARH SEPP).  The ARH SEPP states:

 

“(4)  A consent authority must not refuse consent to development to which this Division applies on either of the following grounds:

(a)  site area
if:

(i)  the secondary dwelling is located within, or is attached to, the principal dwelling, or

(ii)  the site area is at least 450 square metres,”

 

The site is 211.5m2. The area of the site is not considered grounds for refusal of the proposal.  The secondary dwelling meets the relevant requirements of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012) with regard to building height and meets the relevant requirements of the Development Control Plan.  The scale of the proposal is considered to be compatible with the proportions of the site.

 

The site is capable of accommodating a secondary dwelling without adverse impacts on neighboring properties or the natural environment.

 

Randwick LEP 2012

Randwick LEP 2012 applies a height of buildings control of 9.5m and the maximum building height of the proposed carport and studio comply with this height control. 

 

There is no FSR control for sites having a site area less than 300m2. The proposal has an FSR of 0.78:1 and has been considered on its merits against the objectives of the FSR development standard as follows:

 

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

 

Comment: The proposal complies with the height controls in the LEP and DCP and more specifically the controls for development in laneways and the controls for development in the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area. The proposal is a suitable size and of a scale expected in the area and consistent with existing laneway garage/studio development along Dangar Lane.

 

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

 

Comment: The design of the building is articulated through the pitched roof, dormer windows and open form carport on the ground level. The studio is cross ventilated and will receive good solar access.

 

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

 

Comment: The site (highlighted yellow in Figure 1) is located within the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area but is not located close to any contributory buildings or heritage items. The proposal meets all the relevant controls of Chapter 2.2 of the Randwick DCP 2013 in relation to the conservation area. These controls are addressed in the compliance table in Section 3.1 of this report.

 

Figure 1: Randwick LEP 2012 Heritage Map

 

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

 

Comment: The proposal complies with the maximum LEP height control and the height control in the DCP for laneway development. The built form is consistent with existing laneway development along Dangar Lane to the south of the site. The proposal will not impact adversely on the privacy of adjoining neighbours as all first floor windows are all high-sill windows facing the laneway and dormer windows facing north. There are no views to or from the site or adjoining properties and the proposal complies with the solar access controls in the DCP as discussed further in detail in Section 3.1 of this report within the DCP compliance table.

 

Randwick DCP 2012

The proposal complies with all relevant controls in the DCP as well as the controls for development in the North Randwick Heritage Conservation Area.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed development complies with the relevant LEP and DCP controls. It will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding natural or built environment and is worthy of support.

 

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. 713/2016 for a new garage with studio above, at No. 5 Dangar Street, Randwick, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 5 Dangar Street, RANDWICK

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D26/17

 

Subject:             5 Edfecliffe Avenue, South Coogee (DA/419/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/419/2016

Author:                   Chahrazad  Rahe, Senior Assessment Planner     

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new upper level addition, rear in-ground swimming pool with associated decks, widening of the driveway, changes to the front boundary wall, associated site and landscaping works.

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Mr R P Habib

Owner:                        Mr R P Habib

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.png?guid=c76763c1-3fde-4904-8bed-464e93e6946c&contentType=image%2Fpng

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The development application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination at the request of Councilors Andrews, Stavrinos and Nash.

 

 

Proposal

 

The application is seeking approval for partial demolition of and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new upper level addition, rear in-ground swimming pool with associated decks, widening of the driveway, changes to the front boundary wall, associated site and landscaping works.

 

The majority of the works to the basement/ground level include the conversion of the existing single car garage to a double garage, which requires a small amount of excavation under the existing floor space on Level 1 into the sloping site. Two new storage rooms, rumpus room, laundry and rear deck off the rumpus room.

 

The alterations to level 1 maintain two existing bedrooms and the bathroom whilst reconfiguring a number of internal walls to create an open plan living, kitchen, siting and dining room with an internal courtyard terrace to the eastern side of the building and a rear deck off the living/dining area.

 

The second floor addition contains a new main bedroom with ensuite and walk-in-robe as well as an additional bedroom, bathroom and sitting room.  An integrated outdoor balcony is provided to the eastern side of the building which is accessed from this level.

 

Amended plans have been received by Council on 4 October 2016 to address issues raised by Council in relation privacy, views, front setback and height of outbuilding.

 

The proposed changes are as follows:

 

·      The balcony on the eastern side is to be non-trafficable

·      A metre of balustrading off the sitting room on Level 2 is of obscure glazing with a privacy screen to 1.6m high above the balustrade.

·      The roof of the cabana has been amended to be a flat roof profile rather than the skillion roof profile.

 

The applicant has submitted additional scaled plans which were received by Council on 8 February 2017.

 

The assessment is based on the Submitted plans received by Council on 4 October 2016 and 8 February 2017.

 

Subject site & surround development

 

The subject site is located at Lot 6 in Deposited Plan 9452 and is formally known as 5 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee.  The site is rectilinear in shape with an angled front boundary to the street. The site has a frontage of 13.55m to Edgecliff Avenue, an eastern side boundary depth of 47.555m, a western side boundary depth of 49.06m, rear boundary width of 13.416m and a total site area of 647.7m².  The natural topography of the land creates a considerable slope down the street towards the ocean with a fall from west to east of approximately 3 metre across the front of the site and 1.7metres across the rear of the site.

 

The existing development on the land is a single storey dwelling with a basement level excavated into the site and accessed from the street.

 

The immediate surrounding area predominantly contains a mixture of residential development types (i.e. dwelling houses, attached dual occupancy and residential flat buildings) with some local shops, schools and small businesses as well as Randwick cemetery and Latham park in close proximity to the site.

 

To the western boundary of the subject site there are two adjoining properties, No. 1 and No. 3 Edgecliffe Avenue which sit up hill from the subject property. No. 3 Edgecliffe Avenue is currently under construction for a four storey attached dual occupancy development. No. 1 Edgecliffe Avenue is a two storey dwelling located toward the back of the subject block.  To the eastern boundary of the subject site is a two storey dwelling at No.7 Edgecliffe Avenue. To the rear of the property is an adjoining 3 storey dwelling 10 Liguria Street.

 

Many dwellings are oriented to take advantage of views east to the Pacific Ocean.

 

Figure 1: View of the subject and adjoining property at no. 3 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee.  

 

Figure 2: View taken from the rear of the subject site showing the adjoining properties at no.’s 1 & 3 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee.  

 

 

Photomontage 1: Photomontage of proposed development at the front of the dwelling.

 

Photomontage 2: Photomontage of proposed development at the rear of the dwelling.

Submissions

 

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

 

Submission from the owner of 1 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee & submission prepared by Urban Planning Services

 

View loss impacts

Loss of views and devaluation of property.

 

The height of the cabana should not exceed the height of the current western boundary fence as it will eliminate all ground floor living room water views from their property.

 

Refer to View Sharing section which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to view loss impacts. 

 

In relation to devaluation of the property, this issue is not considered to be a planning related matter, which can be addressed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act.

 

Privacy and amenity impacts

The south-facing balcony from the upper level living room will have direct views into their bedrooms and will result in view loss impacts.

 

The raising of the ground levels for the two decks and the first floor level terrace will bring the entertaining areas closer to the rear of their yard which will increase privacy and acoustic problems.

 

The raising of the ground level for the cabana floor and height of the cabana roof will bring the entertaining areas closer to the rear of their yard which will increase privacy and acoustic problems including impacts on views.

 

Refer to Visual Privacy section which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to view loss impacts. 

 

 

 

Height of trees

The height of the proposed trees along the western side boundary will eliminate all ground floor living room water views from their property.

 

Suggests the proposed trees and any landscaping within the pool area not exceed the height of the current western boundary fence.

A condition has been included within the recommendation limiting the height of the trees along the western side boundary to ensure that the proposed development does not result in any unreasonable view loss impacts to neighbouring properties.  

 

Refer to View Sharing section which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to view loss impacts. 

 

 

 

Height of the boundary fence will cause view loss impacts

The height of the proposed western boundary dividing fence at 1.8m will eliminate all ground floor living room water views from their property. 

 

A formal agreement was reached for the dividing fence with the owners of 5 Edgecliffe Avenue.   A 1.8m fence for a distance of 6.4m from the northern end of the fence, then dropping to 1.2m for the remainder of the boundary fence (approximately 11.5m).

It is agreed the proposed boundary fence and landscaping along the western side boundary will eliminate a significant portion of the view and for this reason it is recommended that a condition be included which requires the height of the new fence and proposed landscaping to be at a maximum height of 1.2m from the objector’s natural ground line in order to retain the water horizon views.

 

 

3 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee

 

Issues

Comment

View loss impacts

The roof height of the development will significantly cause view loss impacts to their primary living spaces.  Request that the roof be lowered to an overall flat roof height of RL55.30.

 

Projection of the ensuite on the second floor level over the existing north front boundary line will also result in loss of view and amenity from their master bedroom.

Refer to View Sharing and Front Setbacks sections which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to view loss impacts.

 

Solar access impacts

The proposed projected ensuite will block morning solar access to their master bedroom.

 

A condition is recommended which requires the ensuite to be reduced in depth by 1 metre. This will slightly improve solar access into the master bedroom. 

 

Overall, the development meets the minimum solar access control requirement in the DCP for neighbouring properties.

Impact from rear deck (deck 1)

The proposed rear BBQ and entertaining deck will result in solar access, acoustic privacy and view loss impacts to the bedroom.  The roof over the deck is approximately 4.5m in height and spans 8m.  The wall is directly adjacent to their private open space, is only setback 900mm, is excessive and will not allow reasonable levels of morning solar access to their private open space.

Refer to Visual Privacy and View Sharing sections which address the objectors concerns in relation to privacy and view loss impacts. 

 

 

Object to the proposed location of the rear tree

 

The proposed location and 6m height tree directly east of their private open space will impact views in a south easterly direction and solar access to their private open space.

 

A condition has been recommended by Council’s landscape officer which requires the tree to be at a maximum height of 4m from the new ground level.  This will allow some corridor views to be retained from the rear south eastern corner window of the bedroom on level 1.

 

Refer to View Sharing section which addresses the objectors concerns in relation to view loss impacts. 

 

Breach of Building Height and FSR calculations

It appears that the proposed development breaches the building height and FSR limits.  The maximum building height should be taken from the garage RL of 45.980 to the roof ridge RL of 56.480 which result in a maximum building height of 10.5m.

 

Would like the building height and wall height to be clarified as this significantly impacts on their views.

 

The applicant’s SEE states that gross floor space is based on both definition in the RLEP and National Construction Code, which is incorrect.  Request the FSR calculations and gross floor area be clarified.

Sections through the building have been provided by the applicant demonstrating that the proposed development complies with the height of building standard in the LEP 2012. Refer to figure 12 in the view sharing section.  The development also meets the objectives of the height of building control for the following reasons:

·        The building scale and built form reflects the predominant character of buildings in the streetscape and in the immediate locality.

·        As demonstrated in the relevant sections below subject to conditions the amended development will not result in unacceptable amenity impacts to the neighbouring properties in terms of visual privacy and acoustic privacy, overshadowing and views.

The proposed development has a contemporary form with articulation provided along all elevations ensuring that the appearance of the walls from street level and neighbouring properties is not obtrusive.

 

The allowable FSR on the site is 0.60:1 for a dwelling house development.  The proposal provides an FSR of 0.48:1 (or 309.6m²) which is well under the control standard in the LEP 2012.

 

Moreover, the bulk and scale complements the desirable future streetscape character and achieves a suitable urban design outcome that is generally consistent in scale and built form with neighbouring development in the immediate area.

 

 

 

Support

 

A Submission has been received from the neigbouring property at no. 11 Edgecliffe Avenue in support of the proposed development.

 

Key Issues

 

RANDWICK DCP 2013 - PART C1: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

 

Sub-section 3.3.1 - Front Setbacks

Controls

 

i)    The front setback must be consistent with the average setbacks of the adjoining dwellings. Where there are no adjoining dwellings, the setback must be no less than 6m.

 

Where a development is proposed in an area identified as being under transition in the site analysis, the front setback will be determined on a merit basis.

       

ii)   For corner allotments, the setback from the secondary street frontage must be in accordance with the following minimum requirements:

 

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

           -      1500mm for all other sites

 

iii)  The front setback areas must be free of structures, such as swimming pools, above-ground rainwater tanks and outbuildings.

 

Note: Transitional areas can be areas of mixed character, without clearly prevailing characteristics or features. They can also be precincts or localities in the process of undergoing change in terms of character or built form.

 

A submission was received from the neighbouring property at no. 3 Edgecliffe Avenue objecting to the proposed front setback in reference to the second floor ensuite as it will result in view loss impact from their master bedroom.

 

The applicant was advised to increase the front setback to achieve a more skillful design and to slightly improve views.  The applicant has not agreed to increase the front setback and has argued that the proposed front setback will be consistent with the average setbacks established within this section of the street. 

 

As shown in Images 1 & 2 below, it is agreed that the proposed second floor ensuite protrudes from the building to the extent of the average front setback of the adjoining dwellings and will be generally consistent with the average setbacks along Edgecliffe which meets the numerical control for front setback.

 

However, in order to meet the view sharing objectives of the DCP and the opportunity for a more skilful design, the ensuite should be setback further from the front boundary.

 

Given the generous size of the ensuite on level 2, a condition is included within the recommendation requiring an increase of 1m to the front setback by reducing the depth of the ensuite by 1m.  This will improve the view corridor to the south, allowing more views of the ocean and Wedding Cake Island from the front of the northerly neighbour.  Also, it will be more in line with the ground and level 1 of the proposed building. The ensuite maybe increased in width by 1 metre to substitute for the loss in the ensuite area. 

 

Image 1: Established front building setback along southern side of Edgecliffe Avenue.

 

 

Image 2: Front setback of ensuite and immediately adjoining dwellings at no.’s 3 & 7 Edgecliffe Avenue.

Sub-section 5.3 - Visual Privacy

 

Objective

·      To ensure development minimise overlooking or cross-viewing to the neighbouring dwellings to maintain reasonable levels of privacy. 

 

Controls

 

i)      All habitable room windows must be located to minimise any direct viewing of existing habitable room windows in adjacent dwellings.

 

ii)     The windows to the living areas must be oriented away from the adjacent dwellings where possible. In this respect, they may be oriented to:

·       Front or rear of the allotment;

·       Side courtyard.

 

iii)    Where a balcony, deck or terrace is likely to overlook the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings, privacy screens must be installed in positions suitable to mitigate the loss of privacy.

 

Subject to conditions, it is not expected that the proposed development will result in any unreasonable adverse privacy impacts to the neighbouring properties.

 

a.    Windows

The window openings to the northern and southern elevations will primarily overlook the street and rear yard of the subject site, respectively.

 

The window openings to the western elevation are offset from adjoining window openings, are highlight windows or will be screened by the common dividing fence.

 

To the eastern elevation retractable screens are proposed to majority of the window openings to minimise direct overlooking into the neighbouring properties private living areas and rear yards.  This level of privacy is acceptable when considering there are easterly ocean views beyond.  The two window opening on the ground floor level to this elevation will be screened by the dividing fence.  The window openings to Decks 2 and 3 are located well back from the building edge and further from the eastern boundary which minimises direct overlooking into the neighbouring property at no. 7 Edgecliffe Avenue. 

 

b.    Balcony

Objections were raised regarding the proximity of the rear deck to the boundary of No. 3 Edgecliffe Avenue. These objections primarily related to view loss, solar access and privacy.

 

Deck 1, a privacy screen is provided to the western side of the deck.  Landscaping and fencing along the western side boundary is sufficient in height to also assist in providing reasonable privacy measures between the properties whilst still retaining a significant portion of the existing views.   A privacy screen is not provided to the eastern side of this deck in order to take advantage of the ocean views beyond.  In regard to acoustic privacy, No. 5 Edgecliffe Avenue was designed and approved with an existing deck/entertaining area in its current location within the subject site.  This is considered acceptable given that the deck is merely an extension on its existing position which had no screen to this side of the deck and the modifications are unlikely to generate significant privacy concerns than what currently exists.  Further, when considering there are ocean views beyond achieving total privacy would be unreasonable for the occupants of the site.

 

In relation to deck 2 which is located to the eastern side of the dwelling, this deck is sited slightly below the neighbouring property roof line at no. 7 Edgecliffe Avenue and will primarily overlook the roof area of this neighbouring property.  However, to avoid overlooking in a downward direction in it recommended that the balustrades on the eastern side be of obscure glazing.

 

Further, it is anticipated that deck 1 which is off the main living area and deck 3 which enjoys majority of the ocean views would be the primary entertaining deck areas for the occupants of the property.   Reasonable privacy measures are in place for both of these decks.

 

Deck 3 on the second floor level enjoys a 180 degree of ocean, headland views of Coogee and Clovelly and Wedding Cake Island views in a north easterly and easterly directions.  This deck is sited well above the roof line of the neighbouring property at no. 7 Edgecliffe Avenue and will primarily overlook the roof area of this neighbouring property, front yard and street; and takes advance of the ocean views beyond.  A 1m high obscure glazed balustrade with 600mm high louvre screen above is provided to the southern end of the eastern balustrade to restrict views into the neighbouring property’s courtyard area in a downward direction.

 

The ground floor rear decks 4 & 5 have an RL of 48.370 which is much lower than the ground floor level of 1 Edgecliffe Avenue and the retaining wall and fence along the western side boundary (despite being conditioned to be lowered to a maximum height of 1.2m from the neighbouring property’s ground line at no. 1 Edgecliffe Avenue) are sufficient in height to provide reasonable level of privacy between the properties whilst retaining views.

 

In addition to the above, it is not anticipated that the pool area and associated decks to the rear of the dwelling (which includes the cabana area) will cause significant acoustic impacts given that the pool area of neighbouring property at no. 1 Edgecliffe Avenue is located directly adjacent to this area in question and therefore, the noise impacts generated will be similar.

 

Privacy concerns as outlined by the owners of No. 1 Edgecliffe Avenue primarily relate to the second level rear balcony 1.

 

In relation to the rear second floor balcony 1 a condition is recommended which requires the balcony to be reduced to a maximum depth of 1 metre. This will improve easterly views and reduce any privacy impacts.

 

Subject to the above recommended conditions, the level of privacy between the subject and neighbouring properties are acceptable when considering there are ocean view beyond and total privacy within these type of areas maybe further obstruct views.

 

Sub-Section 5.6 - View Sharing

The objectives of the view sharing control are as follows:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Controls

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

vi)    Clearly demonstrate any steps or measures adopted.

 

View loss assessment

 

Introduction

Sharing of views is a design performance requirement in Randwick Council’s Development Control Plan 2013.

 

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

 

Step 1. “The first step is the assessment of views to be affected. Water views are valued more highly than land views. Iconic views (e.g. of the Opera House, the Harbour Bridge or North Head) are valued more highly than views without icons. Whole views are valued more highly than partial views, e.g. a water view in which the interface between land and water is visible is more valuable than one in which it is obscured.”

 

Two submissions were received in relation to view loss from the neighbouring properties to the west of the subject site at no.’s 1 & 3 Edgecliffe Avenue.  The views in question are currently enjoyed across the side boundary of the subject site from the front, side and rear boundaries of the objector properties.

 

The directions of views are identified below for each of the properties.

The views at no. 1 Edgecliffe Avenue are identified in red dashed line from ‘D’ to ‘E’ and at no. 3 Edgecliffe Avenue are identified in yellow dashed line from ‘A’ to ‘C’.

 

The views are mainly obtained in an easterly direction across of the South Pacific Ocean as shown in figure 1 below.  However, for no. 1 Edgecliffe Avenue views are also obtained in a south easterly direction towards the rear of the dwelling and for no. 3 Edgecliffe Avenue in a north easterly and a south easterly direction at the front and rear of the dwellings.

 

There are iconic coastline views of Coogee and Clovelly headlands and Wedding Cake Island that will be slightly impacted by the proposed development.

 

Figure 3: Site analysis plan identifying direction of views currently enjoyed and the affected properties at No. 1 & 3 Edgecliffe Avenue, which adjoins the development site to the west

 

Step 2. “The second step is to consider from what part of the property the views are obtained. For example the protection of views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries. In addition, whether the view is enjoyed from a standing or sitting position may also be relevant. Sitting views are more difficult to protect than standing views. The expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic.

 

1 Edgecliffe Avenue

 

Views from ground floor living areas

Current views of the ocean are mainly enjoyed in a standing position in an easterly and south easterly direction from the ground floor living area.  Depending where you are positioned in the rooms views can be obtained in a siting position.  Figure 4 below provided by the objector’s consultant indicates the exisitng and extent of views lost as a result of the proposed building which includes the dwelling, cabana strucutre and western side boudnary fence. 

 

Figure 4: Easterly water view currently enjoyed from the ground floor living areas of 1 Edgecliffe Avenue which will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. (Image provided by the objector’s consultant)

 

  

Figure 5: South easterly water view currently enjoyed from the ground floor living areas of 1 Edgecliffe Avenue and view loss as a result of the proposed development. (Image provided by the applicant)

 

View from the first floor Master bedroom and bedrooms

There are three bedrooms that will be impacted by the proposed development, one being the master bedroom which is located to the northern end of the dwelling and two additional bedrooms to the centre and southern end of the building.  Current views of the ocean are enjoyed in a sitting and standing position in an easterly and south easterly direction from these bedrooms and off the rear balcony to these bedrooms.   Figure 6 to 8 below provided by the applicant and objector’s consultant indicates the exisitng and extent of view loss. 

 

  

Figure 6: Easterly water view currently enjoyed from first floor level bedrooms of 1 Edgecliffe Avenue to the left and proposed views lost to the right as a result of the proposed development. (Image provided by the objector)

 

Figure 7:  Easterly water view currently enjoyed from the upper floor master bedroom of 1 Edgecliffe Avenue which will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. (Image provided by the objector’s consultant)

 

Figure 8: Easterly water view currently enjoyed from the upper floor southern bedroom of 1 Edgecliffe Avenue which will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. (Image provided by the objector’s consultant)

 

3 Edgecliffe Avenue

 

Views from third floor living room windows

Current views of the ocean, Coogee headland and Wedding Cake Island are enjoyed in a standing position across the side boundary and standing and siting position across the front boundary in a north easterly direction.  Figures 9 to 11 below provided by the applicant indicates the exisitng and extent of view loss.

 

Majority of the swepping ocean views todards the rear southern end of the living areas in a south easterly direction down to Mistral Point interface will be retained.

 

   Figure 9: Easterly water view currently across the eastern side boundary enjoyed from the third floor living room of 3 Edgecliffe Avenue which will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. (Image provided by the applicant)

 

  

Figure 10: North easterly water view currently enjoyed from the north eastern corner of the building on the third floor living room of 3 Edgecliffe Avenue which will be impacted as a result of the proposed development. (Image provided by the applicant)

 

 

 

 

Figure 11: Close-up image of figure 10 above from the north eastern corner of the building on the third floor living room demonstrating an increase in the front setback of 500mm by reducing the depth of the ensuite. (Image provided by the applicant)

 

Views from rear south eastern corner of bedroom on level 1 (Ground floor):

Current horizon views of the ocean are enjoyed in a standing position to the rear of the building in a south easterly direction.  Figures 12 below provided by the objector indicates the exisitng views.

 

 

Figure 12: Existing south easterly diagonal ocean views from the rear bedroom on level 1

 

Step 3. “The third step is to assess the extent of the impact. This should be done for the whole of the property, not just for the view that is affected. The impact on views from living areas is more significant than from bedrooms or service areas (though views from kitchens are highly valued because people spend so much time in them). The impact may be assessed quantitatively, but in many cases this can be meaningless. For example, it is unhelpful to say that the view loss is 20% if it includes one of the sails of the Opera House. It is usually more useful to assess the view loss qualitatively as negligible, minor, moderate, severe or devastating.”

 

1 Edgecliffe Avenue

 

Views from ground floor living areas

Depending where you are positioned in the living areas the extent of view loss varies.  In some cases the view loss is more serve than others.  As demonstrated in figure 5 above, majority of the views to the south east as a result of the amended cabana structure will be retained.  The will be only very minor oblique water view loss and therefore, the height of the cabana structure is considered to be acceptable and is not required to be further lowered.

 

It is agreed the proposed boundary fence and landscaping along the western side boundary will eliminate a significant portion of the views and the impacts will be severe. In order to retain the water horizon views, it is recommended that a condition be included which requires the height of the new boundary fence to be at a maximum height of 1.2m from the objector’s ground line at no. 1 Edgecliffe and the landscaping along this boundary is restricted to 2 metres from the proposed ground level.

 

Subject to the above recommendation, qualitatively, the extent of view loss is considered minor.

 

View from the first floor Master bedroom and bedrooms

A minor to moderate portion of the views obtained from the master bedroom, bedrooms and off the bedroom balcony will be lost.  Given, that the primary terrace balcony noted as Deck 3 on the plan for the main living areas on level 2 is substantial in size and obtains 180 degree of ocean and headland views including Wedding Cake Island, the rear balcony 1 off the sitting room which is cause a significant portion of the view loss is to be reduced in size to have a maximum depth of 1m. 

 

Subject to the above recommendation, qualitatively, the extent of view loss is considered minor.

 

3 Edgecliffe Avenue

 

Views from third floor living room windows

The view of Wedding Cake Island at the front of the building will remain uninterrupted from the proposed development.  However, across the side boundary towards the rear end of the living areas will be entirely lost as demonstrate in figure 9 above.  The extent of view lost towards the front of the building is minor and across the side boundary is considered to be serve.

 

In relation to the views that are obtained over the existing eastern side boundary. The reasonable expectation of view retention explicitly states that ‘views across side boundaries is more difficult than the protection of views from front and rear boundaries’ and ‘the expectation to retain side views and sitting views is often unrealistic’. The front and rear views from the main living areas to the north east and south east of the dwellings will remain unaffected by the proposed development. Most of these views that are available are obtainable through standing and siting positions adjacent a window opening or terrace balcony area on levels 1 to 3. 

 

However, given the generous size of the ensuite on the second floor level and that a more skilful design can be achieved to retain parts of the ocean views at the front north eastern side of the living area it is recommended that a condition be included to reduce the depth of this ensuite by 1m.  The ensuite maybe increased in width by 1 metre to substitute for the loss in area. 

 

Views from rear south eastern corner of bedroom on level 1 (Ground floor):

The objector has argued with the inclusion of the proposed 6m high tree to the rear on the western boundary their entire view from this bedroom will be lost.  A condition has been recommended by Council’s Development Engineers which requires the 6m tree to be reduced to a maximum height of 4m from the new ground level.  This will allow some corridor views to be retained from the rear south eastern corner window of the bedroom.

 

Given this room is to a bedroom the level of view retained is not unreasonable when considering the development meets the built form controls in the DCP and LEP.

 

Step 4: The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more skillful design could provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views of neighbours. If the answer to that question is no, then the view impact of a complying development would probably be considered acceptable and the view sharing reasonable.

 

Subject to the above recommendations, it was determined that the overall view-loss from surrounding properties as a result of the proposal would be moderate and an adequate level of view sharing will be retained to the surrounding properties. The view loss is not unreasonable when considering the proposed front and rear building line is consistent with the average setbacks established within this section of the street and complies with the front and rear setback controls in the DCP.   The assessment also concludes that the views across the eastern side boundary are difficult to retain when considering the proposed development meets the built form controls in the DCP and the expectation to retain side views is unrealistic.

 

The development complies with the LEP numerical controls in relation to building FSR and Height of Building Standards as demonstrated in figure 12 below.  As discussed in the relevant section of this report the height, bulk and scale of the development is compatible with other dwelling houses in the immediate neighbourhood and is an appropriate design that relates to the topography and its context.  Further, the proposed development satisfies the relevant objectives and controls of the DCP with regard to Building Envelope and Building Design.

 

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

 

 

Figure 12:  Sections through the building demostrating complance with the height of Building standard.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The site is located within Zone R2 - Low Density Residential under Randwick LEP 2012. The proposal is consistent with the aims of the LEP and the specific zoning objectives, in that the development will deliver a dwelling House development, which will protect the amenity of the adjoining dwellings and is compatible with the desired future character of the locality in the foreshore area.

 

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives and controls contained in Comprehensive DCP for Low Density Residential.

 

Subject to conditions, the proposal will not result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the surrounding properties in terms of solar access and privacy.  An adequate level of amenity will be retained for the surrounding residents and the public domain.

 

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. DA/419/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house including new upper level addition, rear in-ground swimming pool with associated decks, widening of the driveway, changes to the front boundary wall, associated site and landscaping works, at No. 5 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

        Non standard conditions

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a)  The rear Balcony 1 off the sitting room on level 2 shall be reduced in size to have a maximum depth of 1m.  To provide cover over the ground floor Deck 1 an awning structure can be constructed in its place to a maximum RL height of 52.590.

 

b)  The ensuite on level 2 shall be reduced in depth by 1 metre.   The ensuite maybe increased in width by 1 metre to substitute for the loss in area.

 

c)  The new western boundary fence shall be at a maximum height of 1.2m from the existing ground level of the adjoining property at no. 1 Edgecliffe in order to retain the water horizon views.

 

d)  The glass balustrades to Deck 2 on the eastern elevation shall be of obscure glazing to minimise overlooking in a downward direction into the neighbour property at no. 7 Edgecliffe Avenue.

 

Landscape Plan

23      A landscape plan prepared by a qualified professional in the Landscape/ Horticultural industry (must be a registered member of AILDM, AILA or        equivalent) must be submitted to, and be approved by, the Certifying Authority/PCA, prior to the commencement of site works, and must detail   the following:

 

a)       A Planting Plan & Plant Schedule which includes proposed species, botanic and common names, pot size at the time of planting, quantity, location, dimensions at maturity and any other details required to describe the works;

 

b)       A predominance of species that can withstand poor quality sandy soils, persistent salt laden winds, and are not reliant on high quantities of moisture and fertilizer for survival;

 

c)       A high quality selection and arrangement of decorative species throughout the front setback so as to assist with presentation of the development to the streetscape;

 

d)       So as to maintain existing water views for adjoining neighbours to the west, this Plan must include details confirming that any species selected along the length of the western site boundary, including adjacent the pool, will be a species that will not exceed 2 metres in height at maturity above finished ground levels, with screening along the eastern site boundary to use only those species that will not exceed 3 metres in height above finished levels;

 

e)       The tree shown for the rear yard, adjacent the southwest corner of the new dwelling, as well as the three shown for the front setback must be a feature species that will not exceed 4 metres in height at maturity, with the nominated species to be shown in order to confirm compliance.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D27/17

 

Subject:             3 Forsyth Street, Kingsford (DA/887/2010/A)

Folder No:                   DA/887/2010/A

Author:                   Brenton Pearce, Development Assessment Officer     

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of approved development by alteration to landscaping to provide access ramp, relocation of external access stairs, removal of roof from internal courtyard area

Ward:                     West

Applicant:                JI Family Holdings Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mingmuan Ji

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=cfd77b82-0461-475b-a676-475c8affa431&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee on the basis that the original application DA/887/2010 was determined at Ordinary Council Meeting on 13 December, 2011.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

Section 96 modification of approved development by alteration to landscaping to provide access ramp, relocation of external access stairs, removal of roof from internal courtyard area.

 

The applicant has advised Council that several changes to the original design were necessary to accommodate a disabled access ramp, unobstructed passage to a Fire Indicator Panel and a reduction in the size of parking facilities to the front of the dwelling. As a result the development does not include a single car space as required and instead has increased the number of motorcycle parking spaces from 3 to 5.  Supplementary to the Section 96 plans, the applicant has also provided a certificate of compliance for the access ramp which has already been constructed. 

 

Site

The property is described as Lot 2 under DP 101865 and is commonly known as 3 Forsyth Street, Kingsford. The site is located on the eastern side of Forsyth Street between Barker and Middle Streets, Kingsford. The site also has frontage to its rear to Willis Lane.

 

The site has a width of 10.06m and a length of 50.29m. The total site area is 505.9sqm.

 

The site has a substantial fall from Willis Lane (RL37.81) to Forsyth Street (RL30.81), being a fall in the order of 7m.

 

Development surrounding the site is mixed in its form consisting of detached single dwelling houses as well as unit developments.

 

The site to the north contains a two storey dwelling. To the immediate south stands a semidetached dwelling.

 

Surrounding development on the eastern side of Willis lane consists of unit development while to the west, off Forsyth Street, development consist of dwellings and unit developments with the majority of the building forms being unit developments. Development generally consists of a mixture of architectural style and form with surrounding developments generally being part two and part three-storeys.

 

The subject site is extremely close to the University of NSW and within comfortable walking distance to the commercial precinct located along Anzac Parade.

 

Figure 1. No. 3 Forsyth Street, Kingsford. Source Google street view 2016.

 

SECTION 96 ASSESSMENT:

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The proposed modifications do not significantly vary from the original proposal and are minor in nature. As such the development remains substantially the same.

 

Notification and Consideration of 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 there were no submissions.

 

Key Issues

 

Section 79C Assessment

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

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

 

State Environmental Planning Policy Affordable Rental Housing (2009)

The subject application is made pursuant to the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) and requires assessment under Clause 29 – Standards that cannot be used to refuse consent and Clause 30 Standards for boarding houses. The following clauses are relevant to the proposed section 96 changes;

 

The catalyst for this application was to legitimise an access ramp which complies with the following criteria set out in Clause 25 of the SEPP, whereby:

 

(1)  The gradient of any access ramp must not be steeper than 1:14.

 

(2)  An access ramp must be constructed so as to comply with Australian Standard AS 1428.1—2001, Design for access and mobility—General requirements for access—New building work.

 

(3)  An access ramp must not create a traffic or pedestrian hazard.

Further, to ensure access to the existing Fire Indicator Panel was not obstructed the area designated for use as an accessible car space was utelised to maintain a 600mm exclusion zone either side of the panel. As a result the remaining space does not comply with Clause 17 of the SEPP which specifies:

(3)  An open hard stand car parking space must measure at least 2.6 metres wide by 5.4 metres long.

As a result the proposal indicates that the accessible carapace shall be removed and the number of motorcycle parking spaces increased from 3 to 5. The proposed modifications still satisfy the standards of the SEPP as specified in Clause 30 and demonstrate that the character of the local area will not be adversely affected by the changes.

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

The proposal is not inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP 2012.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013

 

Table C4: Boarding Houses

The controls of the C4 Table supplement the AHSEPP provisions with additional guidelines and operational requirements to ensure quality yet affordable building design, effective on-going management and suitable living environment for both occupants and neighbours. The proposed changes are minor in nature and will not result in any adverse environmental impacts to the adjoining properties. The proposed changes will generally comply with the objectives of the DCP by ensuring high standards of amenity for residents and surrounding neighbours is maintained

 

Car Parking:

The original application provided one car space for the manager, 3 motorcycle spaces and 20 bike racks in the secured basement area. The subject application proposes to provide no designated car space on the basis that the disabled access ramp and required unobstructed zone for the Fire Indicator Panel of 1metre, renders the remaining available space for car parking non-compliant with Council’s minimum car space dimensions.  Given that the future lodgers are likely to be UNSW students, many of these students are unlikely to have cars. Further, the site is located within easy walking distance to Anzac Parade, UNSW and to Randwick Junction where transport, goods and services can be sourced without the need for a car.

 

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

The proposed modifications have been assessed against the relevant criteria and the development is considered to remain substantially the same, therefore the proposal is considered acceptable. With the exception of providing the required number of car spaces the development now meets the relevant standards contained within the State policy. The proposal does not create unreasonable impacts to the adjoining property and the form and scale of the proposal remains in keeping with the character of the area as detailed.

 

Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That Council, as the consent authority, grant development consent under Sections 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/887/2010/A by alteration to landscaping to provide access ramp, relocation of external access stairs, removal of roof from internal courtyard area, at No.3 Forsyth Street, Kingsford, in the following manner:

 

·              Amend Condition 1 to read:

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

 

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans:

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA01 Job No 1007

Archicorp

September 2011

DA02 Job No 1007

Archicorp

September 2011

DA03 Job No 1007 (MODIFIED VERSION showing 1500mm setback of units 12 and 13 to Willis Lane)

Archicorp

September 2011

DA04 Job No 1007 (MODIFIED VERSION showing 2500mm setback of units 16 and 17 to Willis Lane)

Archicorp

September 2011

DA05 Job No 1007

Archicorp

September 2011

DA06 Job No 1007

Archicorp

September 2011

DA07 Job No 1007

Archicorp

September 2011

DA08 Job No 1007 (MODIFIED VERSION showing revised elevation

Archicorp

September 2011

DA09 Job No 1007

Archicorp

September 2011

DA10 Job No 1007

Archicorp

September 2011

DA11 Job No 1007

Archicorp

September 2011

SD01 showing comparison shadows with approved plans

Archicorp

undated

SD02 showing comparison shadows with approved plans

Archicorp

undated

SD03 showing comparison shadows with approved plans

Archicorp

undated

Proposed parking Scheme 2

 

 

 

Except as amended by the Section 96 plans listed below, only in so far as they relate to the modifications highlighted on the Section 96 plans and detailed in the Section 96 application.

 

Plan

Drawn By

Dated

SEC-96/001

LFORM Architects

November 2016

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D28/17

 

Subject:             135-143R Beach Street, Coogee (DA/897/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/897/2016

Author:                   Barker Ryan Stewart, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Alterations and additions to the Coogee Surf Life Saving Club including decking, external stairs and enclosure of existing terrace

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Coogee Surf Life Saving Club

Owner:                        NSW Department of Industry - Lands

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=7577738e-097d-4cde-a222-f837a97c323f&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is assessed by external planning consultant and is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the subject land is under the care, control and management of Council and the estimated cost of development exceeds $2 million.

 

Site

 

The subject development proposes nominated demolition, alterations and additions to the existing Coogee Surf Lifesaving Club at 135-143R Beach Street, Coogee. The subject site is located at the northernmost point of Beach Street, adjacent to Coogee Beach and Thompsons Bay as seen in Figure 1.

 

Figure 1: Aerial photography of Coogee Surf Lifesaving Club

 

The site consists of an existing two-storey rendered building with metal roof and associated car park. The surrounding developments are primarily dominated by three to four storey residential apartment buildings and commercial businesses. Goldstein and Grant Reserves are located directly south of the site.

 

Figure 2: Aerial photography of Coogee Lifesaving Club and Locality 

 

The integrity of the building remains high; however, the current building is dated. Access to the existing building is limited to entrance stairs and unleveled areas. The proposal seeks to improve accessibility through a low rise lift and reconfiguring the existing first floor level.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed works consist of nominated demolition, alterations and additions to the existing Coogee Surf Lifesaving Club at 135-143R Beach Street, as seen in the figures below. The proposed works will improve accessibility to the site as well as the structural longevity and usability of the building.

 

The proposed materials and finishes are neutral in colour and non-reflective. The proposed external finishes and materials are consistent with the existing building and streetscape. 

 

The development application proposes the following works;

·      Nominated demolition works;

·      New external balcony along the Eastern façade at the ground floor level with protective sea wall;

·      Internal reconfiguration of the existing first floor level plan;

·      Raising of internal floor level at the Northern end of the first floor level;

·      New 25 metre external East facing deck with glass balustrade;

·      New external entry stairs;

·      New concrete roof over entry area extension;

·      New metal roof over infilled terrace area;

·      New glazing to the Eastern and Northern façade;

·      Reinstatement of the existing clock to the Northern façade (in existing position); and

·      Signage zones, relocation of existing flagpole and new flagpole.

 

 

Figure 3: Ground Level Notification Plan

Figure 4: Level 1 Notification Plan

Figure 5: Elevation Notification Drawing

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

·            State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 Coastal Protection

The site is located adjacent to Ross Jones Memorial Pool, Coogee Bay and Coogee Beach, therefore the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No. 71 are applicable to the site.

 

The proposed nominated demolition, alterations and additions have been assessed against the aims of the policy as specified under Clause 2 and the following comments are made:

 

·             The proposal will not alter the existing public access to the foreshore or Ross Jones Memorial Pool;

·             The proposed scale is well proportioned to the existing building;

·             The works will not result in any significant impact to the amenity or scenic quality of the foreshore;

·             The proposal will not have any impact to any threatened species or habitat, fish, marine vegetation or wildlife corridor;

·             The proposal will not have any impact to any land-based or water-based coastal activity;

·             The proposal will not have any significant impact on any items of heritage; and

·             There are no known Aboriginal or archaeological cultural places, benefits or traditional knowledge of the subject site.

 

The subject site is also identified as being located within a habitat Corridor. In order to ensure the protection of native fauna and flora, and minimising disturbance on the ecological processes that contribute to their habitats suitable conditions in relation to construction site management are included in the recommendation.

 

It is considered that the proposed demolition, alternations and additions to the Coogee Surf Lifesaving Club are consistent with the aims of the policy as specified under Clause 2.

 

·            Randwick LEP 2012

 

The subject site is zoned RE1 Public Recreation under Randwick LEP 2012 (RLEP). The proposed development is classified as nominated demolition, alterations and additions to an existing structure which is permissible in the zone. The zoning objectives are as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The proposal is consistent with the zone objectives as the proposed demolition, alterations and additions will improve the accessibility to the subject site and usability of the building whilst having no significant impact on the natural environment and current use of the site. The treatment of the northern section of the building with a new glazed and zinc clad façade will provide a contemporary aesthetic whilst still being sympathetic to the form and massing of the existing building and to its foreshore context.

 

Clause 5.10   Heritage conservation

 

The subject site is not identified as a heritage item or within a heritage conservation area. However the site is in the vicinity of heritage items in the area. Councils Heritage planner provided the following comments on the proposal:

 

The Site

The site is located on the southern headland of Coogee Beach and is occupied by the Coogee Surf Lifesaving Club building.  The two storey building has its lower floor at the level of the rock platform and its upper level at the same level as Beach Street.  The site is adjacent to the Beach Street sandstone wall, the Ross Jones Memorial Pool and the Grand Pacific Hotel, all listed as heritage items.  The Randwick Heritage Study Inventory Sheet for the sandstone retaining wall notes that it was built by Randwick Council in 1882.  The Inventory Sheet for the pool notes that its significance derives from its unique design, its aesthetic appeal due to its siting and relationship to surrounding elements (surf club, promenade etc.) and its associations with local swimming clubs and their members.  The Inventory Sheet for the Grand Pacific Hotel notes that the 3 storey Edwardian style flats date from around the 1920s. 

 

Proposal

The building was heavily damaged by wave action during recent storms.  The proposal is for internal and external alterations and additions, primarily at the upper level.  Internally it is proposed to remove of a number of walls and construct new walls to reorganise internal planning, with open planned function rooms at the northern end of the building and ancillary areas at the southern end.  Externally, changes are proposed to the north (Coogee Beach), east (ocean) and west (Beach Street) elevations.  To the north elevation, a new glazed and zinc clad façade is to be provided.  To the east a new balcony and access doors are to be provided.  To the west a new entry and adjacent servery are proposed. 

 

Submission

The proposal has been accompanied by a submission prepared by Lockrey Planning and Development Solutions P/L.  The submission provides some history for the building.  The submission suggests that the first clubhouse was a 1910 Georgian Revival style masonry building.  The submission notes that while the hall interior survives substantially intact, the building has been greatly changed and enlarged with the lower section completed in 1929, the upper floor around 1960 and additions to the south from 1968 to 1982.  The submission notes that much exterior architectural detail has been removed, including poor repairs to the original porch and infill of external doors adjacent to the entry hall. 

 

Controls

Clause 5.10(1) of Randwick LEP 2012 includes an Objective of conserving the heritage significance of heritage items including associated fabric, settings and views. 

 

Comments

The original timber surf club building was constructed in 1910 and replaced by a brick building in 1929.  The original timber building is shown in a historic photograph contained in Joan Lawrence’s book Pictorial History of Randwick.  The original timber building was detached from the adjacent sandstone cutting which was topped by an iron palisade fence.  No photographs of the old brick building have been located, but there may be some in the possession of the Surf Club.  Council’s historic aerial photographs indicate that the original envelope of the brick building, occupying the northern half of the existing site, comprised a hipped roof to the northern, eastern and southern sides of the single storey building.  In the late 1950s the hipped roof was removed, possibly in conjunction with addition of the new top storey.  Further additions to the south in the 1970s and 1980s have resulted in the current footprint which occupies the entirety of the site.  The complex construction history of the building is reflected in its roof forms. 

 

Surf Club building builds on the massing of the existing rock platform and forms a termination to the southern end of Coogee Beach.  The north elevation of the building is visible from a considerable distance to the south and west.  The east elevation of the building is also highly visible along the length Coogee Beach, while the west elevation is partially screened by surrounding development. 

 

The Coogee Beach sandstone wall terminates around 12m from the northern elevation of the Surf Club building and its fabric will not be affected by the proposed works.  It is unclear whether a section of low sandstone wall which may be a remnant of the wall shown in the 1910 photograph is able to be incorporated into the proposed entrance configuration.  The proposal should maximise the retention of existing sandstone walls at the level of the street and the rock platform. 

 

The existing terrace in the north east corner of the building is recessed within the line of external walls.  The new upper level deck on the east elevation is to be wider and somewhat longer than the existing lower level deck but is to be unroofed.  The new entry on the western elevation relates to the setbacks of the adjacent existing west wall.  The proposed changes will not significantly enlarge the existing building envelope.  The bulk of the building when viewed from the south will not be visibly increased as the new deck and new entry of the side elevations will be set back from the southern elevation.  The proposed changes should maintain the presence of the existing building in views from Coogee Beach and its promenade and the adjacent pool, and avoid impact on the setting of the pool and the adjacent Grand Pacific Hotel. 

 

A suitable condition is included requiring existing sandstone walls at the level of the street and the rock platform to be retained as much as possible.

Part F1 Development in Recreational Zones

 

As stipulated in Part F1 of the RDCP 2013, the proposal should demonstrate the following matters:

 

i)        the need for the proposed development on that land;

ii)       the need to retain the land for its existing or likely future recreation use;

iii)       the impact of the proposed development on the existing or likely future use of the land;

iv)      whether the proposed development is complementary to the scenic, recreational and/or ecological values of the land; and

v)       in the case of RE1 Public Recreation zoned land, whether the proposed development would:

a)  unreasonably impede or diminish the intended public use or public access to the land;

b)  be consistent with any relevant plan of management adopted by Council.

 

It is considered that the proposed alterations and additions will allow for the continuing use as a lifesaving club and that the proposed development will be adequately managed and designed to ensure minimal impact on the habitat corridor and the coastal area and on surrounding properties having regard to heritage significance and amenity impacts.

 

·      S94 Contributions

 

The applicant is seeking exemption to the payment of the contribution for the following reasons:

 

 

Council’s S94A Plan identifies the following the categories of development for which n exemption may be sought:

 

 

As Surf Clubs are not exempt under the provisions of the S94A Plan a condition requiring payment is included in the recommendation.

 

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 has been assessed against Section 79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and Randwick Local Environmental Plan 1998 and is considered satisfactory.

 

The proposed works are considered appropriate within the context of the site. The application is recommended for approval subject to the attached conditions of consent.

 

Recommendation

 

A.       That 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. 897/2016 for nominated demolition, alterations and additions, at No. 135-143R Beach Street, Coogee subject to the following non-standard condition and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

2.a)    The existing sandstone walls at the level of street and rock platform must be retained as much as possible. Details are to be submitted to Council’s Heritage Planner for approval prior to issuing of a construction certificate.

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - DA/897/2016 - 135-143R Beach Street, COOGEE

Included under separate cover

  


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D29/17

 

Subject:             12 Bunya Parade, South Coogee (DA/899/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/899/2016

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

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing dwelling construction of 3 level dwelling including lower level garage and storage, plunge pool at rear, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Ms E J Cohen

Owner:                        Ms E J Cohen

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=f7ee3ba6-d70d-41ff-b21b-79e46b459d8c&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the proposal cost of works more than $2 million.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling on the subject site and erection of a new 3 level dwelling which include the following works:

 

Basement Level:

 

-    New entry

-    Two car garage

-    Storage

-    WC

-    Water tank

 

Ground Floor Level:

 

-    Open plan Kitchen, Living and dining area

-    Powder room

-    2 x Bedrooms

-    Bathroom

-    Study

-    TV/Rumpus room

-    3 x outdoor deck areas

-    New swimming pool at the rear with associated deck area

-    New landscaping works

 

First Floor Level:

 

-    Master bedroom with ensuite and walk-in-wardrobe

-    Outdoor deck area

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Bunya Parade between Palmer Street to the north and Cuzco Street to the south. The site is formally described as Lot 25 in DP 6772.

 

The subject site has a primary frontage of 14.44m to Bunya Parade. The site has a depth of 42.72m at its northern boundary and a depth of 43.7m at its southern boundary. The site has a total area of 567.1m2.

 

The subject site is surrounded by low density residential development.

 

The properties to the south which are addressed to Cuzco Street are elevated above the subject site whilst the established, dense vegetation also screens the respective properties.

 

Figure 1: Existing dwelling on the subject site

 

Figure 2: Existing dwelling as viewed from the rear yard of the subject site

 

North

Figure 3: Blank southern elevation of the northern adjoining neighbor at 10 Bunya Pde. The 2nd storey of the proposed dwelling aligns with the 2nd storey shown above.

 

South

Figure 4: Development to the south of the subject site elevated above the 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:

 

52 Cuzco Street, South Coogee

 

Issue

Comment

The submission requests that a canvas or screen be erected at the south side of the site to prevent damage from debris and dust during demolition.

Noted. A condition of consent has been included that a Construction Site Management Plan and a Demolition Work Plan must be prepared prior to commencement of any works which will include measures to prevent damage to neighbouring properties during demolition and construction.

 

Key Issues

 

Foreshore Scenic Protection Area

The subject site is located in the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area. Clause 6.7 of the Randwick LEP 2012 requires Council to consider the probable aesthetic appearance of the proposed dwelling house in relation to the foreshore.

 

The development application is accompanied by a Statement of Material Intention prepared by Casey Brown Architecture which states:

 

The light toned, natural hues of concrete and coreten steel have been specified, and are commensurate with section B10 of the Randwick Council DCP principles for materials in foreshore scenic protection areas.

 

Furthermore these materials have been chosen in direct response to the extremely harsh climate of the site. They are highly durable, and are capable of withstanding the exposed and windy coastal environment of South Coogee.

 

This is considered to be satisfactory with regard to Clause 6.7 of RLEP 2012.

Building Height – External Wall Height

The subject site slopes from rear to front. The greatest degree of slope occurs across the building envelope as shown in the wall height excerpt below:

 

Figure 5: Elevation showing minor wall height breach

 

Therefore it is reasonable to apply an 8m wall height control. While the majority of the proposed dwelling is under the 8m wall height, a small section of the 2-storey component of the dwelling breaches the control by 300mm.

 

The non-compliance is considered acceptable given that the overall building height is well under the LEP height standard and the non-compliance does not generate any unreasonable amenity impacts.

 

 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed new dwelling complies with the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any adverse impacts upon either the amenity of adjoining properties or the character of the locality.

 

The FSR is over 100 sqm below that permitted. Compliance with front, side and rear setbacks, combined with the above factors, results in a modestly scaled dwelling. The proposal will have a positive contribution to the Foreshore Scenic Protection Area due to the sensitive design and use of neutral/earthy colours, materials and finishes.

 

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. 899/2016 for Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new 2 storey dwelling with pool, at No. 12 Bunya Parade, South Coogee, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 2 Bunya Parade, SOUTH COOGEE 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D30/17

 

Subject:             14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (DA/50/2017)

Folder No:                   DA/50/2017

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

/50/2017Proposal:  First floor addition to existing dwelling.

Ward:                     Centre Ward

Applicant:                Mr T Maguire

Owner:                        Mr C J Cole

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application is assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to the Planning Committee Meeting for determination as a Randwick City Councillor is a neighbouring resident.

 

 

 

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks approval for a first floor addition to the existing semi-detached dwelling at 14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra.  The addition includes access stairs from the kitchen / dining room on the ground floor, a new first floor including a rumpus room, bedroom 4, bathroom, bedroom 3 and a hall.  The addition will be setback 5m from the front building line of the ground floor and will adopt a more simplistic, modern style with a flat roof and clad exterior. 

 

Site

 

The site is legally known as Lot A in DP 412632 and addressed as 14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra. The site has an area of 221m2 and contains a single storey semi-detached dwelling, with a shared party wall with 16 Chapman Avenue.

 

The dwelling currently consists of two bedrooms, sunroom, a bathroom, lounge and kitchen/ dining room. Within the front building line setback is a hardstand car parking space and landscaping. Along the western (side) boundary of the site is a pedestrian access path to the rear. Adjoining the building to the rear is a deck, with a landscaped area beyond and a small garden shed in the north western corner of the lot.  The dwelling is indicated in Figures 1 and 2. 

 

Figure 1 :  No. 14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra, with the adjoining property to the east being No. 16 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (left).

 

Figure 2 :  No. 14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra, with the adjoining property to the east being No. 16 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra (left) .

 

The site is located in a residential area, characterised by one and two storey dwellings particularly in the form of semi-detached dwellings.  There are various examples of second storey additions similar to what is proposed.  Further to the west and the north are also examples of residential flat buildings of four storeys and above.  Figures 3 to 8 show the development to the east and west of the site.  The topography is generally flat. 

 

Figure 3 :  No. 12 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra, with the adjoining property to the west not visible behind vegetation, (being No. 10 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra).

 

Figure 4 :  Numbers 18 and 20 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra.

 

Figure 5: Looking west along Chapman Avenue, across the frontage of the Site. 

 

Figure 6 :  Property opposite the site, No. 1 Chapman Avenue.

Figure 7:  Example of a similar second storey addition within the vicinity of the site at No. 33 Chapman Avenue.

 

Figure 8 : Two more examples of second storey additions at No. 19 and 17 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra. 

 

Submissions

 

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

 

Key Issues

 

1.         Zone Objectives, Overlooking and Streetscape

The subject site is zoned R3 Medium Density under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). The proposed development is classified as alterations and additions to an existing semi-detached dwelling.  It is permissible in the zone with consent. The zoning objectives are addressed as follows:

 

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

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

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

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

§ To protect the amenity of residents.

§ To encourage housing affordability.

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

The impacts of the proposed development, in terms of overshadowing are acceptable.  Both the subject property and the adjoining properties will maintain solar access to primary living areas and private open spaces.  The proposal will not result in any unreasonable overlooking.  The side bathroom and rumpus room windows are proposed to have a raised sill height and thus limit downward overlooking.  

 

The impacts on views will be reasonable given that the extension will be within the relevant building standards.  The table below indicates the proposed floor space ratio and building height relative to the maximum permissible.

 

Description

Council Standard

Proposed

Compliance

(Yes/No/NA)

Floor Space Ratio (Maximum)

0.9:1

0.8:1

Yes

Height of Building (Maximum)

12m

6.47 to 6.97m

Yes

 

The impacts on the streetscape are discussed below with reference to the fourth objective.

 

2.         Side Elevation Length and Streetscape Impact

Part 4.1 of Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 prescribes a maximum side elevation length of 12m.  It has been proposed to provide a 15.5m side wall length.  Strict compliance will be of minimal benefit to any overshadowing and privacy implications, however it is important to the streetscape impact and achievement of the following objective:

 

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.

 

Desirable elements of the streetscape consist of existing first floor additions that provide appropriate articulation rather than long bland walls.  There are some examples, where the wall length is limited to either 12m (with no articulation).  In some cases there are wall lengths of over 12m with cosmetic variations (i.e. change in materials).  This represents a better outcome in terms of being a desirable element that would contribute to the desired future character.  In this regard, a condition is recommended to require treatment of the side elevation to provide visual relief via a change in materials and colours along this section of the wall to appear recessive.

 

3.         Views   

No fundamental concerns are raised to any view and vista impacts given the following factors:

 

§ Given the expanse of views likely from surrounding dwellings and smaller nature of the extension (which will limit the extent of the impact and is comparative to those already in existence), no substantial obliteration is expected.

 

§ The extension will be located within the permisible building envelope set by height, floor space ratio and setback provisions.  Accordingly an equitable amount of views for the surrounding properties as far as is practicable and reasonable is expected to be reserved.

 

§ No objections have been received with respect to view loss.

 

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 generally complies with the relevant LEP and DCP controls. The proposed development will not result in adverse impacts and no submissions have been received in relation to the proposal.

 

 

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. 50 for 2017, at No. 14 Chapman Avenue, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

Side Elevation

2.       The west side elevation shall be treated to provide visual relief via the adoption of a change in materials and colours along this section of the wall to appear recessive.

 

Details are to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of City Planning, prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 14 Chapman Avenue, MAROUBRA

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                               14 March 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D31/17

 

Subject:             8 McMaster Place, Little Bay (DA/533/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/533/2016

Author:                   Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Integrated development for construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with in-ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works (variation to floor space ratio control) (Heritage Conservation Area). Consent is also required from the Office of Environment and Heritage

Ward:                     South Ward

Applicant:                Safwen Hijazi

Owner:                        Malak El Etry

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the cost of works exceeds $2.

 

Proposal

 

Integrated development for construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with in-ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works (variation to floor space ratio control) (Heritage Conservation Area). Subject to consent from the Office of Environment and Heritage.

 

Revisions

Council’s assessing officer raised concerns regarding the originally proposed wall heights, bulk, southern setbacks, and the lack of habitable room windows to the front façade. In response, the applicant:

 

-   Reduced the wall and overall heights by 810mm (rear section) and 250mm (front section).

-   Increased the lower ground floor and ground floor level southern side setbacks from between 1.5m to 2m, to between 2.4m to 2.6m. Increased the first floor level southern side setback to 3.2m from 3m.

-   Reduced the floor space ratio from 0.56:1 to 0.55:1.

-   Proposed windows with a metal screen to the frontage of the upper level instead of a glass block wall.

 

The revisions did not require re-notification as they did not increase the bulk or scale of the proposal and are considered to be within scope of that originally notified.

 

Relevant Consenting History

A now lapsed consent and subsequent Section 96 modification (DA/536/2007) approved the same ground floor level southern side setback (2.4m to garage) and floor space ratio (0.55:1) as that currently proposed. Consent lapsed 30 August 2012.

 

Site

The subject site is located on the south-eastern side of McMaster Place and is located in close proximity to the intersection of McMaster Place and Meyer Close.

 

The site is rectangular in shape and topographically has a fall from the north-west (front) to the south-east (rear). The site has no significant landscaping and other above ground physical features.  The rear of the site, and of those adjoining, contains an asset protection zone overlay for fire protection between the residential sites and remnant bush land towards Little Bay.

 

On the adjoining site to the south-east, an existing two storey free standing dwelling is present, and to the north-west a vacant lot is present with a current DA approval for a part 2/part 3 storey dwelling with garage DA/34/2016.

 

Figure 1: Photograph of the vacant subject site from the street.

 

Submissions

 

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

 

No’s 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10 McMaster Place

Issue

Comment

1. The proposed maximum wall height should be 7m. The site is not steeply sloping and a 8m wall height is therefore not applicable. A 7m wall height will preserve views.

 

 

2. The glass block façade to the frontage will glare due to sun reflection.

 

 

3. All the buildings within the street have side setbacks between 3m and 6m. The proposed side setback of between 1.5 to 3m is inconsistent with this.

 

4. The lower ground floor is partly above ground, which makes it a three storey structure that is not consistent with neighbouring properties.

 

1.  The Part E4 of the RDCP 2013 sets a maximum wall height of 8m for the site, irrespective of the site’s slope. A compliant wall height of 7.2m is proposed (a reduction of between 250mm to 810mm from what was originally notified).

2.  The glass block wall is now no longer proposed. A window with metal screen is now proposed. This is not an unexpected outcome and dwellings within the area have glass to their frontages.

3.  Refer key issues discussion below. Note that the proposed southern side setback has now been increased to a minimum of 2.4m and the average southern side setback along this side of McMaster Place is 2.4m.

4.  The built form above existing ground level and as it presents to the street, is that of a 2 storey dwelling.  

 

 

Key Issues

 

Clause 4.6 Exception – Floor Space Ratio Standard (Clause 4.4)

The proposal seeks to vary a development standard contained within the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). A Clause 4.6 exception has been submitted to Council.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012, the floor space ratio of the building must not be more than 0.65:1 on the site. A floor space ratio of 0.695:1 is proposed.

 

The proposed variation is summarised in the table below:

 

 

Floor Space Ratio

Development Standard

0.50:1

Proposal

0.55:1

Excess Above the Standard

0.05:1 or 10%

 

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the standard pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012: Exception to a Development Standard.

 

Clause 4.6 RLEP Request to Vary Development Standard

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

 

Assessment Against the Applicant’s Written Justifications for the Contravention of the Development Standard

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

 

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

 

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

 

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

 

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

 

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

In relation to the matters required to be demonstrated by sub clause (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 stated objectives of the RLEP which apply to floor space ratio are:

 

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

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

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

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

 

The applicant’s written justifications outline the following arguments for departure from the standard:

 

The subject site is within Precinct 4 of the Prince Henry Site – Little Bay. As such it has a floor space ratio of 0.5:1 as stated in the Floor Space Ratio Map within Randwick LEP 2012.

 

The site area of the subject site is:                             599.4 m2

Floor Space Ratio:                                                   0.5:1

Therefore the maximum permissible gross floor area:   299.7 m2.

 

The proposal seeks a gross floor area of:

Lower Ground Floor:                                                124.3 m2

Ground Floor:                                                         145.9 m2

First Floor:                                                                     67.4 m2

Total:                                                                    337.6 m2.

 

The proposed FSR is therefore:                                  0.56: 1

 

It is important to note here that Randwick Council approved the Section 96 A Modifcation to DA/536/2007/A on 1 St December 2009 to provide a basement area for storage and a home theatre. This increased the floor area of the previous scheme by 74.5 m2 and resulted in a FSR of 0.55:1.

 

Therefore the difference in gross floor area, between the previously approved Section 96 and this current proposal is 29.93 m2.

 

We will now address each aspect of Clause 4.6 in turn for completeness:

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

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

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

The clause provides flexibility for particular circumstances such as the subject site, where the site falls across it’s length and the building platform is located below street level as demonstrated on the extract from the long section below:

Macintosh HD:Users:UtzSanby5:Desktop:Screen Shot 2016-06-20 at 2.57.54 pm.png

The extra lower ground floor accommodation is proposed below street level and is excavated into the ground to ensure that, from the street, the house is two-storey in height and is similar to the bulk and scale of surrounding development on the lower section of the street.

 (2) Development consent may, subject to this clause, be granted for development even though the development would contravene a development standard imposed by this or any other environmental planning instrument. However, this clause does not apply to a development standard that is expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

The development standard proposed to be contravened Clause 4.4 Floor Space Ratio is not expressly excluded from the operation of this clause.

(3) 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.

This submission is that written request for consideration by the consent authority. The compliance with the clause is considered unreasonable and unnecessary in the circumstance of this case as outlined in the discussion above where the proposal results in a building form of bulk and scale consistent with the desired future character described by the controls and approved in the area. The failure to set aside the standard would in effect greatly affect the amenity of the Applicant and would severely restrict the development potential of this site when compared to others along this street.

Numbers 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, along the high side of McMaster Place are all part-three storey and all have been developed to their maximum potential. The Applicant here is seeking similar development potential to ensure that the proposal is similar in bulk and scale and the provision of site facilities is commensurate with similar houses in the Little Bay area.

The question of sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravention of the floor space ratio requirements should be considered in relation to the Objectives as defined in Section 4.4 of the DCP Part E4:

·      To ensure development scale is compatible with the surrounding built form and minimise the impact of building bulk on existing buildings in the locality, open spaces and streetscape.

·      To encourage a mix of dwelling sizes and types.

It is clear that the proposal fulfills the objectives described above. It is similar in bulk and scale, when viewed from the street, to all other development along both sides of this street.

The photos below show the existing development along McMaster Place, the development on the high side of the street are all three storey, excavating a lower ground floor into the site and taking advantage of the fall across the length of the site to provide a third storey, while still maintaining the two-storey height limit when viewed from the development along Ewing Avenue.

     

           

(4) Development consent must not be granted for development that contravenes a development standard unless:

(a) the consent authority is satisfied that:

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

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

(b) the concurrence of the Director-General has been obtained.

We have demonstrated on the previous pages that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of Clause 4.4 Floor Space ratio and is similar in bulk and scale to other development in the Little Bay area. The Applicant only seeks to develop the subject site to the same potential as the neighbouring properties and to achieve accommodation commensurate with similar houses in the Little Bay area.

The proposal complies with the Maximum Building Height of 9 metres, it more than complies with both the Landscaped Open Space and Soft Landscaping so it is clear that the requested extra floor area does not impact upon the overall building envelope or indeed reduce any of the open space or soft landscaping on the site.

(5) In deciding whether to grant concurrence, the Director-General must consider:

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

(b) the public benefit of maintaining the development standard, and

(c) any other matters required to be taken into consideration by the Director- General before granting concurrence.

The contravention raises no matters of State or regional significance. It is considered that where the proposal is consistent and compatible with the neighbouring sites in terms of its bulk, scale and character and there is no public benefit in maintaining the development standard. No other matters are required to be taken into consideration.

(6) Development consent must not be granted under this clause for a subdivision of land in Zone RU1 Primary Production, Zone RU2 Rural Landscape, Zone RU3 Forestry, Zone RU4 Primary Production Small Lots, Zone RU6 Transition, Zone R5 Large Lot Residential, Zone E2 Environmental Conservation, Zone E3 Environmental Management or Zone E4 Environmental Living if:

(a) the subdivision will result in 2 or more lots of less than the minimum area specified for such lots by a development standard, or

(b) the subdivision will result in at least one lot that is less than 90% of the minimum area specified for such a lot by a development standard.

This is not applicable to the subject site and Application

(7) After determining a development application made pursuant to this clause, the consent authority must keep a record of its assessment of the factors required to be addressed in the applicant’s written request referred to in subclause (3).

The consent authority will keep a record of the determination.

(8) This clause does not allow development consent to be granted for development that would contravene any of the following:

(a) a development standard for complying development,

(b) a development standard that arises, under the regulations under the Act, in connection with a commitment set out in a BASIX certificate for a building to which State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004 applies or for the land on which such a building is situated,

(c) clause 5.4.

The proposal is not complying development. The devlopment standard does not arise from regulations in connection with BASIX. The standard does not arise from Clause 5.4 or any of the other exclusions listed.

 

In this instance it is considered appropriate to make an exception to the floor space ratio development standard under the provision of Clause 4.6 for the reasons outlined in the preceding discussion.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comments:

·       It is noted that amendments to the proposal have resulted in the FSR being reduced to 0.55:1 (a gross floor area of 330.9m2).

·       The proposed buildings are an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The buildings feature significant physical and material articulation.

·       Significant portions of the built bulk will be below street level and original ground levels. This will minimise the bulk of the building when viewed from the street.  

·       The proposal will provide sufficient private open spaces and landscape space. Front yard planting and general landscaping will blend the buildings into the existing context. 

·       It is considered that the proposal is not inconsistent with the objectives of the standard - the size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality. Further, the height of the building will be comparable to buildings on either side and the proposal complies with the maximum building height standard of the RLEP 2012.

·       The proposed building will comply with the wall height and the majority of the setback requirements of the RDCP 2013.

·       The proposed FSR will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of over dominance, overshadowing and privacy.

 

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

 

The applicant’s written request has successfully demonstrated that there are sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify contravening the development standard. As discussed above, the proposal achieves the objectives of the Floor Space Ratio Standard (Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012), the size and scale of the proposal is compatible with the existing and desired future character of the locality.

 

The proposed building is an appropriate response to the site and its constraints. The building addresses both public realms adjoining the front and rear of the site. The built form and style is comparable to existing development within the Prince Henry/Little Bay area. The proposal will provide more than adequate private open space and landscaped areas. Vegetation will blend the building into its surroundings. The proposal will not result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties in terms of perceived bulk and scale, view loss, overshadowing and privacy. Further, part of the bulk will be below existing ground and street levels.

 

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

Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard of the RLEP 2012. The relevant objectives for development within the zone in which the development is proposed to be carried out (Zone R1 – General Residential) are:

 

·        To provide for the housing needs of the community.

·        To provide for a variety of housing types and densities.

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

·        To allow the comprehensive redevelopment of land for primarily residential and open space purposes.

·        To protect the amenity of residents.

·        To encourage housing affordability.

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

 

In respect of these objectives, the proposal is not inconsistent with the relevant zone objectives in that:

 

-       The size and scale of proposal is compatible with the desired future character of the locality and the proposal will comply with the maximum building height control of the RLEP 2012.

-       The amenity of residents in the vicinity and the broader context of the area will not be adversely impacted by the additional floor area. The proposal will not directly result in any significant adverse impacts on the adjoining residential properties or the adjoining reserve in terms of perceived bulk and scale, overshadowing and privacy.

-       The proposal will provide for the housing needs of the community.

 

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

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

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the Notification of assumed concurrence of the Director-General under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008)) the concurrence of the Director-General of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed for the proposed contravention to the maximum floor space ratio control.

 

Variation from the adherence to the maximum floor space ratio control on this occasion is considered to be of benefit to the orderly use of the site and there is a no public benefit in maintaining the development standard in this instance.

 

The proposed development and variation from the control does not raise any matters of significance for State or regional environmental planning.

 

Side Setback – Sub-Section 4.5 of E4 of the RDCP 2013

The proposal involves southern setbacks of 2.6m (lower ground floor level), 2.4m to 2.6m (Ground floor level) and 3.2m (first floor level). The RDCP 2013 requires side setbacks of 3m.

 

The proposed non-compliance will not be inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the RDCP 2013 and will not result in significant adverse impacts in terms of residential amenity and the character of the area. The side elevations of the dwelling will feature significant physical and material articulation and large expanses of blank or bulky walls close to side boundaries are avoided. The building will exceed the first floor level 3m setback requirements and the view corridor will be maintained through this 3.2m wide setback and the large setback to the north (refer Fig. 2, below). The proposal will comply with the maximum building height standard of the RLEP 2012, and the wall height and solar access controls, and can comply with the visual privacy controls of the RDCP 2013 (subject to recommended conditions).

 

The proposed southern side setbacks are not dissimilar to existing and approved buildings on sites on the same size of the road. In particular, the average southern side setback along this side of McMaster Place is 2.4m. The dwelling originally approved for the site in 2007 (consent now lapsed) had a 2.4m southern side setback to the garage and comparable southern setbacks to other parts of the building. Therefore, the proposal proposed minimum southern side setback of 2.4m will not result in a significantly different pattern of development within the streetscape.        

 

Figure 2. The proposed front elevation showing the proposed southern side setbacks (right-hand side) and the maintenance of a view corridor on both sides.

 

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 dwelling house will comply with the controls and objectives of the Prince Henry Site, Little Bay as prescribed within the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The new dwelling house will result in a contemporary contribution to the existing streetscape and will continue to reflect the coastal and existing built character of Little Bay.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

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

 

B.     That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/533/2016 for an integrated development for the construction of a new part 2/part 3 storey dwelling house with in-ground swimming pool and associated site and landscape works at No.8 McMaster Place, Little Bay, 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

·        The approved plans and documents must be amended in accordance with the following requirements, with details to be included within the construction certificate:

 

a.   A width of the perforated metal screen to Window W1 01 (Master bedroom) shall not exceed 3m, but may be operable. Transparent glass shall be used on Window W1 01. Note: This is required to facilitate casual surveillance of the street from the dwelling and to prevent the creation of a blank facade.

 

b.   A fixed privacy screen having a height of 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the entire north eastern side of the ground floor level terrace. The privacy screen must be either:

 

-   Translucent or obscured glazing

-   Fixed timber/metal slats mounted horizontally or vertically with no more than 30mm openings.

-   Fixed vertical louvres with the individual blades angled and spaced to prevent overlooking of the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings.

 

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

 

·    W0 02 to the Guest bedroom

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 8 McMaster Place, LITTLE BAY 

Included under separate cover