RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 11 April 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                                                                                                 11 April 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, 11 April 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 March 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.

D32/17      773-775 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/595/2016)...................................... 1

D33/17      352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/674/2014/C).......................................... 19

D34/17      28 Dolphin Street, Randwick (DA/726/2016)........................................... 29

D35/17      537 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/905/2016).......................................... 37

D36/17      14 Close Street, South Coogee (DA/224/2016/A)..................................... 43

D37/17      137 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/88/2014/D)........................................ 49

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motion (record of voting required)

NR6/17     Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Garcia, Stevenson and Andrews - 5 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee (DA/419/2016)..................................... 65  

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                 11 April 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D32/17

 

Subject:             773-775 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (DA/595/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/595/2016

Author:                   Willana Associates, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part 6 and part 7 storey mixed use development into two building forms comprising of two commercial tenancies at ground floor level, 24 residential dwellings above, basement parking for 31 vehicles, associated site and landscape works and strata subdivision

Ward:                     Central Ward

Applicant:                Leech Harmon Architects

Owner:                        BAATA PTY LTD

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is assessed by external planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as the value of the proposed development is more than $2 million.

 

Proposal

 

The original plans, dated July and August 2016 propose the demolition of existing structures on site and construction of two buildings on the property. The following summarises the proposed works:

 

Building 1 – facing Anzac Parade

8 storey building including the following features:

·      Two (2) commercial units on the ground floor

·      16 units ( 3 x 1 bed, 13 x 2 bed)

 

Building 2 – facing Ferguson Street

Part 6 storey building facing Ferguson Street with a mezzanine level including the following features:

·      One commercial space on the ground floor

·      Eight (8) units (2 x 1 bed, 6 x 2 bed)

 

A central area of communal open space is located at ground floor level.

Two levels of basement car parking contains of a total of 31 car parking spaces with access off Ferguson Street.

 

On the 21 November 2016 amended plans were received by Council and the design changes are described below:

 

Building 1 – facing Anzac Parade

An eight (8) storey building with the upper level being setback and sited within the roof form. Other features include:

·      Two (2) commercial units on the ground floor. The size of each shop has been reduced and the configuration of the spaces has been slightly altered.

·      14 units (2x1 bed plus media room, 5x2bed plus a media room and 7x2 bedrooms, plus a media room and a study).

·      The unit sizes and configuration have changed.

 

Building 2 – facing Ferguson Street

A six (6) storey building with the top level comprising of a mezzanine and and the habitable areas located within the roof form.

·      One (1) commercial tenancy at the ground floor. The size of this shop has been reduced and it has been setback further from Ferguson Street.

·      Ten (10) units (5 x 2 bed, 3 x 2 bed with media room and 2 x 2 bed including a  mezzanine level that includes a study and bedroom)

 

A raised communal area of open space located in the centre of the Site, between the two buildings.

 

Two basement car parking levels which include a total of 31 residential car parking spaces (including 3 accessible spaces). Eight (8) car parking spaces include stackers.

 

Vehicular access to the Site is from Ferguson Street and includes two driveways, one at grade through to ground floor parking and a second driveway along the southern side that provides access down to the lower basement level.

 

The assessment of the application has focused on the amended plans and details.

 

Site

The subject site comprises of two lots, No.773 Anzac Parade and No.775 Anzac Parade. The legal description is Lot 17, DP 10343 (773 Anzac Parade) and Lot 18, DP 655597 (775 Anzac Parade). Both sites are regular, rectangular shaped allotments.

 

No.773 and 775 Anzac Parade have a combined frontage width of 10.9m to Anzac parade and a similar width to Ferguson Street, depth of 67.07m and a combined total site area of 735.7sqm.

 

Existing on site are two single storey commercial buildings (when viewed from Anzac Parade). The structure at No.775 Anzac parade currently takes up the whole site area and is two storey’s in part (rear portion) whilst the building at No.773 Anzac Parade only extends some 20m. Access is provided from the rear off Ferguson Street.

 

Immediately to the north is No.767-771 Anzac Parade which is a large scale mixed use development comprising of a ten (10) storey building to Anzac parade and a separate five (5) storey residential flat building at the rear (refer to photos). The main pedestrian entry to this development is off Anzac Parade whilst vehicular access is off Ferguson Street. Further north are a variety of larger scale mixed use development including the Pacific Square development.

 

Development further to the south along Anzac Parade comprises of a variety of smaller commercial buildings of one to two storey’s and some newer, larger eight (8) storey developments (i.e 781-783 Anzac parade). Further to the north are generally lower and medium density residential developments.

 

Immediately to the east is the large Council medium strip that includes dedicated public parking and the other side of Anzac Parade includes a variety of mixed use developments. To the west are smaller scale developments along Ferguson Street as zoning at the rear is Residential (R3 zone) (refer to Photo 4).

 

The subject site is located within the Maroubra Junction Town Centre which is very accessible commercial precinct. It is also within close proximity to other amenities including the UNSW, Maroubra Beach, Eastgardens Shopping Centre and other services.

 

Photo 1 – The subject Sites (773 Anzac Parade, the Anglicare Store and 775 Anzac Parade, the children’s art and crafts centre). The large ten storey building to the north of the site is No.767 Anzac parade.

 

Photo 2 – The 5 storey building at the rear of No.767 Anzac Parade

 

Photo 3 – the rear of No.773 Anzac Parade to the left and No.775 Anzac Parade (two storey brown brick building).

Photo 4 – Ferguson Street at the rear.

 

 

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:

 

·      2 Wise Street, Maroubra

·      Unit 23, 805 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      BBC Town Planning Consultants on behalf of 767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra (GK Strata Management Pty Ltd)

·      Unit 1/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 203/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 801/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 206/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 3A03/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 3A02/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 702/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 303/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 306/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 3A05/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 502/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 602/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 303A/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

·      Unit 203a/767 Anzac Parade, Maroubra

 

Issues

Comments

The proposed basement levels could undermine the existing structural adequacy of No.767 Anzac Parade.

The proposed basement levels and the associated earthworks proposed are consistent with similar larger scale mixed use developments with several levels of basements catering for car parking within this commercial precinct. If approval is issued, structural stability to adjoining properties can be ensured by way of imposing conditions which would protect adjoining premises (i.e provision of dilapidation reports and the like).

Loss of Privacy by increased overlooking from balconies at the front and rear of the development.

It is unlikely that the proposed balconies will significantly increase overlooking to the adjoining property to the north.

The siting of the proposed balconies will disrupt and block some views to the south as the balcony walls are not setback in accordance with the DCP controls and the proposed buildings are not aligned with existing building elements of No.767 Anzac Parade and will therefore increase visual bulk and dominance of the building in relation to this neighbouring property.

Built form will block out solar access to windows to kitchens in units within No.767 Anzac parade

The proposed kitchen windows at No.767 currently face south so the existing building overshadows itself and these spaces but the kitchens would receive natural light.

The proposed development will create a large wall on the boundary and this will adversely affect these areas. The proposal should be setback from the boundary so that a void or light well is created which would provide better physical separation between the structures and would provide for more light and should improve the outlook from the kitchen areas.

Devalue property

This issue is not a planning consideration

Loss of views from some units at 767 Anzac Parade

There will be some loss of views to the south from the balconies of No.767 Anzac Parade as the proposal is located forward of the adjoining building line and will therefore block and restrict views and outlook to the south.

These views are not considered to be iconic or significant.

Height exceedance in accordance with the RDCP controls for the precinct

This is discussed in greater detail later in this report. The proposed non-compliance with the height and number of levels at the rear is considered inappropriate and unacceptable in terms of the resultant incompatible scale and form of the building in relation to existing development.

Inadequate building setbacks

The rear building in particular does not satisfy the DCP (Block 10) controls in respect to providing inadequate side setbacks. This issue is discussed in greater detail later in this report.

Non-compliance with Block 10 controls and the RDCP

The proposal fails to satisfy a number of the block controls that govern development on this site including, setbacks, inadequate building separation and number of storey’s. These issues are discussed in greater detail later in this report.

Insufficient information regarding SEPP 65 compliance and compliance with the GFA not exceeding 70%

There are areas of the development that fail to satisfy the SEPP 65 Apartment Design Guide Controls. It seems unlikely the proposal complies with the Building Envelope controls. There is insufficient information provided to ensure compliance is achieved.

Shortfall in parking

There is a significant shortfall in the required off street car parking which is considered unacceptable given the scale and density of development proposed. In addition to this, maneuverability into and around the basement car parking is considered to be problematic and inappropriate in its design.

This issue is discussed in greater detail later in this report.

 

Insufficient deep soil area

The proposed deep soil area does not satisfy the ADG requirements or Council’s controls and the quality and nature of the landscaped area is considered to be inappropriate. A minimum amount of 7% deep soil area should be provided in accordance with the ADG.

Recommendation to reduce number of building storeys, building depth and redistribution of floor areas

The constrained and narrow nature of the site is the main factor why compliance with a number of the controls cannot be achieved.

The proposal in its current form is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and would require a significant reduction in the size, scale and density of the development.

Increasing the site area by amalgamating some additional sites would greatly improve the proposed urban design and planning outcomes for the site as this would create a larger more integrated development.

 

The applicant reviewed the submissions and on the 6 March 2017 and provided a formal written response. The applicant argued that the proposal is considered to be satisfactory from a planning and design perspective and the interface treatment between the two buildings (No.767 and 773 Anzac Parade) is considered to be satisfactory.

 

Key Issues

 

SEPP 65 and urban design

State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development (SEPP 65) applies to residential housing development and requires a consent authority to evaluate the design quality of a proposal against the design principles in Schedule 1 of the policy.

 

The original design was referred to Randwick Council’s Design Review Panel for comment. A written response was provided on 19 September 2016 which raised a series of concerns regarding the original design and non-compliances with the SEPP 65, in summary raising the following issues:

 

·      The floor to ceiling heights of the commercial and residential levels do not achieve the minimum requirements.

·      Some units are oversized as one bedroom apartments.

·      Many design elements that are required are lacking in detail (e.g location and size of exhausts from the basement are not included, details of the siting of adjoining buildings are lacking to show the relationship of the proposal to its neighbours, plantrooms are not included, cross-sections of the building should be shown, retaining wall thicknesses in the basement need to be provided, soil depths in the courtyards need to be included, stormwater tank details etc).

·      Internal layouts are considered to be inefficient.

·      The overall aesthetics of the proposal are considered to be very poor.

 

In conclusion the Panels opinion is that the original proposal “fails to comply with SEPP 65 principles and standards and requests that it review it again when the above comments have been reviewed with Council’s Officers and acted upon”.

 

Amended plans were submitted in November 2016 which partially addressed some of the issues raised by the panel but the design still does not go far enough in addressing many of the issues raised by the Panel.

 

In the amended proposal the floor to ceiling heights have been increased with the ground floor commercial component along Anzac Parade having a height of 3.5m and the upper level residential levels having heights of 3.1m apart from the 5th and 6th level of the rear building having floor to ceiling levels of 2.7m (part of the upper level is located within a mezzanine). The plans do not include concrete slab thicknesses between the floor levels so it is unlikely some of the residential floor to ceiling heights comply with the 2.7m and 3.3m (commercial) minimum requirements.

 

While the internal planning and layout of some units has improved, most units still have a poor level of internal amenity, living and dining rooms are centrally located and light and solar access to these spaces is not adequate with dining spaces having no direct outlook or window. Some units include media rooms which could clearly be utilised as bedrooms however these spaces have no windows and will offer poor amenity. Apartments could be easily reconfigured to create larger and more spacious living/dining/kitchen in lieu of these additional spaces. The internal planning of the development is greatly compromised by the sites narrow and tight configuration and a better outcome would be the provision of one apartment per floor.

 

Balcony sizes of all units (apart from units 4.03 and 4.04) fail to comply with the minimum requirements for balcony sizes for two bedroom units which is 10sqm. The proposed balconies are of an odd configuration but have average areas of 7.8sqm which is inadequate given the overall sizes of units.

 

It is unclear whether a minimum of 70% of the apartments living spaces (in the amended scheme) achieve the minimum solar access requirements. Also ensuites seem undersized in some apartments. There is also a lack of details regarding the amount of apartments achieving the minimum cross ventilation requirements in accordance with the ADG (a minimum of 60% of apartments require to be naturally cross ventilated).

 

Clause 6.11(4) of the RLEP relates to the Design Excellence of a proposed development that is over 15m in height. The proposal falls within this category and therefore Clause 6.11 is applicable in this case. Subclause 4 requires a consent authority to consider the following matters when considering an application:

 

(a)     whether a high standard of architectural design, materials and detailing appropriate to the building type and location will be achieved,

(b)    whether the form and external appearance of the development will improve the quality and amenity of the public domain,

(c)     how the proposed development responds to the environmental and built characteristics of the site and whether it achieves an acceptable relationship with other buildings on the same site and on neighbouring sites,

(d)    whether the building meets sustainable design principles in terms of sunlight, natural ventilation, wind, reflectivity, visual and acoustic privacy, safety and security and resource, energy and water efficiency,

(e)    whether the proposed development detrimentally impacts on view corridors and landmarks.

The proposal fails to satisfy a number of the requirements and matters highlighted above including the relationship between the subject development and the existing neighbour to the north and as previously mentioned the internal amenity of many apartments and their design is considered to be poor and fails to satisfy Clause 6.11(4)(d).

 

The amended plans still lack detail and fail to provide information regarding the location of the exhaust, ventilation stormwater details and plant rooms.

 

The provision of a garbage area and bike storage in the lower basement is considered to be difficult to access and will pose a safety issue in the future as this creates the opportunity for conflict with motor vehicles entering and exiting the site.

 

The commercial suites are considered to be poor in design. Access to the commercial units off Anzac Parade can only be achieved from the street frontage which is inconvenient for waste removal or to access other areas within the development like the communal area of open space. The fact these tenancies do not have a secondary access point at the rear of the shop which would provide direct access to the development comprises their general functionality.

 

The rear commercial tenancy is only 35sqm in area which is a very small tenancy and this will restrict potential future uses. There is also no internal amenities provided in the form of an WC. Also access to this rear tenancy from Anzac Parade is convoluted as it is not direct and requires accessing the main lift lobby to the rear building getting to the ground floor and then leaving the building and re-entering the shop via Ferguson Street. This is considered to be an inconvenient and lengthy path of travel.

 

Height and scale

Although the proposal satisfies the overall numeric height control pursuant to RLEP 2012, both buildings fail to satisfy the anticipated scale for future development form along this side of the street as defined by the RDCP. The Block 10 controls encourage two levels of commercial uses along Anzac Parade. Whilst this is a preferable land use outcome especially as this site is located within the Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre, compliance with this control does not seem to be strictly complied with as many new developments include residential uses on the first floor level. Appropriate justification as to why the control cannot be met has not been provided.

 

Council has approved first floor residential uses in similar developments however has requested that the  floor to ceiling heights be increased to 3.3m at this level which provides flexibility for future uses and offers the potential for conversion to commercial uses. The proposed floor to ceiling heights at this level currently don’t comply.

 

Block 10 seeks to achieve generally consistent heights along this side of the street with development along the Anzac Parade frontage reaching a maximum of 7 storey’s whilst development at the rear off Ferguson Street achieving 5 storey’s.

 

Existing heights along this stretch of the street are varied, however new development comprises of a variety of 7-8 storey buildings with the 8th storey being setback and recessed (i.e 803 Anzac Parade). No.767 Anzac Parade achieves a height of 10 storeys and the DCP recognizes this built form as part of the controls. It highlights this property as dark brown and acknowledges its existing higher scale. Despite this, the DCP is seeking lower heights to create a transition to the residential form and character further to the south. Having said that, the proposed eight (8) storey scale along Anzac Parade is not considered to be inconsistent with existing built forms (i.e 801 and 803 Anzac parade) especially as the upper level is recessed and designed within a roof form reducing its visual scale. The two units at the upper level (7.01 and 7.02) are considered generally acceptable in their design however usually these upper level spaces are reserved for larger, high quality penthouse apartments which obtain excellent internal amenity, private open space and provide for good outlook and views.

 

The proposed six (6) storey building at the rear is non-compliant with the DCP control which dictates a five (5) storey form at the rear. The proposed scale exceeds the height of the adjoining building to the north by two (2) storeys as a mezzanine is classified as a storey. The proposed 6th storey and mezzanine level are recessed. The roof will be a visually dominating feature and the scale will not be consistent with development along Ferguson Street. Ferguson Street is a narrow thoroughfare catering for small scale residential building s along its western side. The additional storey will be visible and will not sit comfortably next to No.767 Anzac parade. It will be over 4m higher than the adjoining property.

 

Setbacks

The DCP specifies a nil setback to Anzac parade. The commercial component of the two proposed shops generally satisfies this provision. However at the upper levels (Level 1-6) the building is located closer to the front boundary than No.767 Anzac Parade. The building is aligned with the front balconies of this adjoining building rather than the building wall and as such will project forward of this building which will increase its visual bulk. At a minimum it should be aligned with this adjoining building’s wall. A similar issue is prevalent at the top floor level as the proposed building wall is in line with the balconies and will be forward of the adjoining building wall. This will increase the visual bulk of the building.

 

The building along Anzac parade is situated boundary to boundary and there are no proposed side setbacks. This is a preferred design solution for development in commercial centres so buildings abut one another however in this case the proposal has not been designed to consider the siting of No. 767 Anzac parade. No.767 Anzac Parade has been constructed so that the first section of the building is located on the boundary then it is setback further as there are windows to kitchens and windows to the staircase that are situated along this southern boundary.

 

The residents at No.767 Anzac parade have strongly objected to the proposed building being situated in the northern boundary which would result in loss of outlook and some natural light to these kitchen areas. Since these spaces face south the existing building already overshadows these spaces to a large degree however the spaces would receive good natural light and ventilation. The lack of any side setback, articulation, inclusion of a lightwell or the like adjoining these kitchen areas will create a poor visual connection and design outcome for the residents at No.767 Anzac Parade.

 

In terms of the rear setback off Ferguson Street, this part of the site is subject of road widening which has been taken into account in the design but a minimum 3m setback is required from the rear ide boundaries. The subject site adjoins a strata titled building and as such the 3m side setback is required. The commercial shop along Ferguson Street is setback some 2m from the street. The upper levels are setback 1.5m (building wall) from the rear boundary. The proposed balconies extend to the new boundary (after the road dedication has occurred) which is well forward of the adjoining building to the north. The lack of setback and lack of consistent building alignment will create a large solid blank wall on the southern boundary of the adjoining property and adversely affect the residents at No.767 Anzac Parade. The proposal will be visually dominating and bulky when viewed from the adjoining property’s balconies and from the streetscape.

 

Building depth and separation

The required building depth for the rear building is 15m (12m glass line to glass line) in accordance with the Block 10 controls within the RDCP. The actual building depth is 14.3m (glassline to glassline) along the northern side and 15.7m (glassline to glassline) along the southern side. This exceeds the control and the building depth will be inconsistent with the layout and siting of the adjoining northern building which is wider but shorter in depth. The relationship between the two buildings will be incongruous and the proposal will overwhelm this building in terms of its scale, design, bulk and lack of separation.

 

Building Envelope

The RDCP requires that all developments are to demonstrate that the gross floor area achieved occupies not more than 70% of the maximum building envelope for residential floors. There is insufficient information provided in order to be able to measure compliance with this standard. Given that the proposal exceeds the DCP controls in respect to height (number of storey’s) and non-compliance with the side setbacks, and as such it seems unlikely that the building would satisfy the building envelope control.

 

Car Parking, maneuverability and access

The site in its current form is seriously constrained by its narrow site width. This creates difficulties in achieving compliance with a number of planning controls including the car parking and access requirements and the proposal is seriously deficient in respect to the amount and layout of car parking in accordance with Part B7 of the RDCP.

 

The creation of two driveways off Ferguson Street is a very inefficient use of land and is a direct result of the tight width of the site. The proposed parking configuration is poor and results in over 60% of this secondary frontage being taken up by vehicular access. The two ramps are delineated by a poor open style balustrade. This arrangement also exposes the main lift entry providing access to the upper residential levels which is unsafe. The partially exposed garbage area on the ground floor is a visually unattractive feature and is potentially unsafe.

 

The shared pedestrian accessway via the driveway is considered to be a poor design outcome. A safer and more formal pedestrian entry from the rear would make this space more attractive and inviting for occupants and visitors alike.

 

There is no provision for a loading dock within the design for a relatively large development. It is probably assumed any loading and unloading of goods etc may occur off Anzac parade. This section of Anzac parade does not cater for any formal on street loading bays and given rear access is available a loading bay should be included for this scale of development. If a small truck were to access the basement and there are no car parking spaces available there is inadequate width to turn and exit the site in a forward direction.

 

As previously mentioned the bicycle parking/storage area is located in the lower basement which is difficult to access and should ideally be located at grade for ease of access and convenience.

 

The garbage areas should be located in one convenient location rather than two areas on each level. This is inefficient and logistically difficult to utilize and administer.

 

Maneuverability into and out of the basement is awkward and there is inadequate space for turning. The aisle widths proposed at 5m are under the minimum requirement of 5.8m (Australian Standard 2890.1:2004). To address this issue the spaces have been widened to around 3m. However this doesn’t solve the issue that if all car parking spaces are occupied on either level there is insufficient space to turn and exit the site in a forward direction. The shared zone is only 2.4m wide and will not provide adequate space.

 

The proposal fails to comply with the numerical car parking requirements. A total of 34 spaces are required for the residential component (including visitor spaces). A total of 4 spaces for the commercial component are required and none are provided.

A total of 31 car parking spaces are provided (this includes the car stackers) and all spaces are dedicated to the residential component only.  In total the development is deficient of 7 car parking spaces. The non-compliance is considered to be substantial and the non-compliance is considered unsatisfactory in this case.

 

The originally proposed development was supported by a Traffic and parking assessment which was prepared by Terraffic and dated 22 August 2016. This report relied on the original design which included a slightly different dwelling and commercial mix. Nonetheless, the arguments relating to the non-compliance remain relatively the same.

 

The traffic consultants argue that the existing car parking on site is only 2 spaces (No.773 caters for two car parking spaces whilst No.775 provides for no off street car parking). The report therefore calculates that the buildings currently existing on site are commercial in nature and their floor space would generate the need for 21 car parking space but as only 2 are provided then there is a credit for 19 spaces for the site.

 

This is considered to be an unreasonable assumption to make and unsubstantiated as it is unclear whether the existing buildings on site are approved and have been constructed in accordance with any previous consents to ensure the credits are properly validated. 

 

It is acknowledged that the site is very well located and highly accessible however the non-compliance is still considered to be inappropriate and is clearly a result of an overdevelopment of the site combined with the narrow site width. Most of the on street car parking along Anzac Parade is restricted parking whilst the 90degree parking along Ferguson Street is unrestricted. This is probably acceptable for the commercial tenancy at the rear who would rely on this parking however the two commercial tenancies off Anzac Parade should have onsite parking as occupants of these tenancies will require long term parking and the option of parking on Ferguson Street is possible however access through to the Anzac Parade tenancy’s is convoluted and awkward.

 

It is generally accepted that there is ample on street car parking to cater for visitors to the site however the retail/commercial tenancies require parking and I believe this is a necessity. Currently the lack of parking for these uses will place undue parking pressure on adjoining residential streets where parking is unrestricted. The shortfall for the commercial component on this basis cannot be supported.

 

Deep soil area and landscaping

The RDCP does not specify a minimum requirement for landscaped area for mixed use or shop top housing developments within Maroubra Junction Commercial Centre. However the ADG does provide some minimum requirements for landscaped area and deep soil zones for residential flat buildings which can be used as a guide.

 

In respect to the provision of communal open space, the ADG requires a minimum of 25% of the site to be dedicated as communal open space with about 7% of deep soil area being provided. That amounts to 184sqm of communal space and 51sqm of deep soil.

 

The proposed development incorporates a centralized raised landscaped podium area which comprises of an area of some 90sqm (this excludes the main walkway which transects the area and is located at a lower level). It seems this area is raised above the ground/street level to accommodate the stackers as part of the car parking arrangement. It is over 1m above the ground level with the car park air grilles being visible from along the communal walkway. With the addition of a hand rail this area will be over 2m above the ground level and access to this space is only provided by a set of stairs from the rear building which is inconvenient and it seems that from the plans a disabled person will not be able to access this area.

 

The landscape plans inadequately detail all the plant species to be used and do not include soil depths for the main areas only within some designated planter boxes. There are no seats incorporated within the space and therefore its quality and functionality is limited. The raised podium structure adversely affects the amenity of bedroom No.1 to unit G.01 as it creates a large wall and will restrict light and solar penetration into this habitable space.

 

The location, size and amount of communal open space and landscaped area is considered to be insufficient and poorly designed.

 

It fails to satisfy the requirements of the ADG in respect to its location, size, provision of deep soil area and the plans lack appropriate details regarding its implementation and functionality of the space.

 

Overdevelopment

The proposed development fails to comply with a number of planning controls pertaining to the site including side setbacks, building envelope, car parking and height (number of storey’s) controls which creates a large, dominating development which will be bulky and will be visually dominating especially when viewed from Ferguson Street. The relationship of the proposed development to its immediately adjoining neighbour to the north (No.767 Anzac Parade) is poor and does not respect the siting and location of existing windows (to kitchens) and balconies and as such will be bulky and present poorly to this property.

 

The proposed design of the building’s do not satisfy a number of the main Apartment Design Guide provisions including floor to ceiling heights (as slabs are not included on the amended plans to ensure compliance is achieved), balcony sizes and the amenity of living/dining areas is considered to be poor and substandard given their location and size. Also some of the bedroom sizes are substandard in their size. As such the internal amenity of many of the apartments is considered poor even by the amended scheme.

 

The cumulative non-compliances create a development that is too large in scale and density for the site and needs to be substantially reduced and the internal planning reconsidered to achieve high quality internal spaces. A larger and more integrated development could be achieved if more sites were amalgamated as the subject site is considered to be narrow, small and greatly constrained by its width.

 

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

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

 

Conclusion

 

The failure of the amended plans to adequately address the outstanding SEPP 65 issues and the developments non-compliance with a series of key planning controls for the site (design, setbacks, parking and access, building envelope and height) create a large, bulky and dominating built form that is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

 

The siting, bulk and scale of the rear building will adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining development at No.767 Anzac Parade and will have a negative impact on the Ferguson streetscape.

 

It is for these reasons that the proposal, in its current form, cannot be supported.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuse consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 595/2016 for the demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new part six (6) and part eight (8) storey mixed use development including three (3) commercial tenancies at ground floor level, 24 residential dwellings above, basement parking for 31 vehicles and associated site and landscape works and strata subdivision, at No. 773-775 Anzac Parade, Maroubra Junction for the following reasons;

 

1.       The design of the proposed development may not comply with the definition of “shop top housing” in accordance with the provisions of the RLEP 2012 and would be considered a prohibited use in its current form.

 

2.       The proposal fails to satisfy the objectives of the B2 – Local Centre zone, as the proposal with have an adverse impact on the amenity of residents in the zone and in the adjoining and nearby residential zones as a result of the proposed built form.

 

3.       The proposed development fails to comply with Clause 6.11 (Design Excellence) pursuant to RLEP 2012 as the development does not appropriately respond to the existing characteristics of the streetscape and built form (especially to Ferguson Street) and the building’s interface and siting in relation to No.767 Anzac Parade will adversely affect this property in terms of excessive bulk and scale. The internal design and amenity of many apartments fails to satisfy Clause 6.11(4)(d).

 

4.       The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 in that the design does not comply with a number of design requirements in the Apartment Design Guidelines including the minimum size of balconies, floor to ceiling heights, minimum sizes of bedrooms, the amount and provision of private open space to the ground floor apartments and the minimum provision of deep soil area and area of communal open space.

 

5.       The proposal fails to satisfy the provisions of State Environmental Planning Policy No.65 as the internal amenity of many apartments is substandard and poor. The dining area of most apartments will not achieve adequate levels of solar access and natural ventilation which is considered to be an unacceptable design and amenity outcome. 

 

6.       The bulk and scale of the proposal is considered to be inappropriate especially in relation to the height and siting of the rear building and the proposal fails to comply with the Building Envelope (Section 3.1.3) and Height controls (Block 10 Section 4.2) as outlined in the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013. The siting of the proposal will adversely affect the outlook and amenity of the kitchen and balcony areas of No.767 Anzac Parade.

 

7.       The proposed development does not comply with the 3m side setback requirement along Ferguson Street in accordance with Section 4.2 of the RDCP 2013 and the inadequate side setback, design and siting of the building will have adverse amenity impact to the balconies and living spaces of the occupants at No.767 Anzac Parade as the proposed built form is not in alignment with this neighbouring property.

 

8.       The height and scale of the rear building off Ferguson Street is incompatible and inconsistent with existing and established development along this roadway and the development will be bulky and visually dominating.

 

9.       The siting, height and design of the building facing Anzac Parade will adversely affect the adjoining development to the north and the proposed nil side setback to the north will create undue visual bulk to the kitchens, balconies and living spaces of the units within No.767 Anzac Parade and will adversely affect their internal amenity.

 

10.     The proposal fails to satisfy Council’s car parking requirements in that there is an insufficient amount of off street car parking provided especially in relation to the commercial uses in accordance with Section 3.2 (Part B7) of the RDCP 2013 and the traffic consultant’s justification for non-compliance is not considered acceptable and not supported in this case.

 

11.     Vehicular and pedestrian access from the rear of the site is considered to be poorly designed and does not comply with Australian Standards in respect to minimum isle widths AS 2890.1:2004 and it is unlikely that vehicles will be able to exit the site in a forward direction if all car parking spaces are occupied.

 

12.     The integration of car stackers lacks detail to ensure that they can be installed within spaces that are designated to be wider than a standard sized car space. The raised ground floor level to assist in accommodating these mechanical stackers creates a poor use of spaces at this level creating a disjointed area of communal open space.

 

13.     The shared accessway from Ferguson Street is not considered to be an acceptable design solution as it is considered to be an unattractive and unsafe particularly for pedestrians and occupants of the development.

 

14.     The proposal lacks provision and space for motorcycle parking which should be accommodated in accordance with the RDCP 2013.

 

15.     The location and layout of amenities within the basement are not considered to be an appropriate design solution given the density of the development. The location of the waste disposal area on the ground floor is unsafe and exposed to the front foyer area.

 

16.     The proposed elevated, central area of communal open space is poorly designed as it will not achieve a minimum of 3 hours of solar access throughout the day in mid-winter. The space is hard to access and does not cater for disabled persons. The treatment of the space is poor and does not include proposed soil depths and actual treatment of the space in terms of the amount and form of deep soil planting.

 

17.     The deep soil area has not been appropriately designated and the proposal fails to satisfy the minimum 7% required in the Apartment Design Guidelines within SEPP 65.

 

18.     Due to the narrow and constrained nature of the site and the cumulative non-compliances with planning controls the proposed development is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

 

19.     The application provides insufficient details with respect to the following issues;

·      Compliance with the Building Envelope.

·      The first floor of the building facing Anzac Parade being residential in nature and not commercial as required by the RDCP 2013.

·      Minimum solar access and cross ventilation requirements to comply with SEPP 65 provisions. 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 773-775 Anzac Parade, MAROUBRA 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 11 April 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D33/17

 

Subject:             352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly (DA/674/2014/C)

Folder No:                   DA/674/2014/C

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of Land and Environment Court Approval to delete condition 2(a) to allow for construction of roof terrace

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Fpg No 2 Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr G B Newhouse; Mr Z Volf; Ms V Ivanetc; Mr M I Moses

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as the original Development Application was determined at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 28 April 2015.

 

Proposal

 

This Section 96 application seeks to install a roof terrace area for the upper level unit required to be deleted from the development by condition 2a. The roof terrace sought as part of this application varies from the originally proposed roof terrace as shown in figures 1 & 2 below.

 

 

 

Figure 1: Section 96 proposed roof terrace

 

Figure 2: Original roof terrace deleted by Condition 2a.

 

Application history

 

·      Original consent issued on 28 April 2015 for demolition of all structures on site and construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 3x3 bedroom dwellings, roof terrace, a basement car park for 6 vehicles, associated site and landscaped works.

 

·      Section 96 “A” approval issued by the land and Environment Court under 10769 of 2015 under a S34 agreement filed on 13 November 2015. The agreement related to alteration to lift entry and overrun (to RL36.60), car parking arrangement, new laundry,  stairs and storeroom in basement,  relocation of bin store,  alteration to internal layout,  changes to eastern windows,  changes to form of southern wall, and relocation of skylight. The extension to the living area by 1.2m at the front was removed as part of the S34 agreement.

 

·      Section 96(1) “B” approved on 7 June 2016 modified condition 12 allowing for the removal of a street tree adjacent to the approved driveway and provision of another street tree in the vicinity of the subject site.

 

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

 

Council may only approve an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

 

The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original approved development for a flat building. However, having regard to the matters that lead to the approval of the original application, it is considered that the recommendation for approval was subject to the deletion of the roof terrace and associated structures due to the additional massing associated with the terrace and adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts. In other words, the deletion of the roof terrace was an essential matter that minimised the massing of the development and would achieve a reasonable protection of the neighbouring and surrounding properties visual and acoustic privacy and view sharing. This is supported by the imposition of condition No. 2b and 2c which required a reduction in the overall height of the development and requirement for plant and equipment to be located within the basement level.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is not considered that the section 96 application will remain substantially the same development as that originally approved. Notwithstanding, an assessment is carried out against the proposed modifications sought as part of this application.

 

Site

 

The subject site has an area of 424.5sqm with an irregular tapered frontage to Clovelly Road and a skewed rear boundary to properties elevated a considerable height above the subject site. The subject site is elevated above street level rising in level towards the rear with a total variance of 2.19m above street level. The site also falls down in level from east to west with a variance of 1.35m with the western site being the low end of the site. The subject site is neighboured to the east by a part-two part-three storey flat building and to the west by a part-one part-two storey building containing a shop premises fronting Clovelly Road with residential above and a single storey to the rear. To the rear, several multi storey flat buildings are elevated above the subject site by around 2.3m (not including fencing).

Aerial view of the subject site and surrounding areas

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:

 

·      1/26-28 Melrose Parade

·      4/26-28 Melrose Parade

·      5/30-32 Melrose Parade on behalf of owners at 30-32 Melrose Parade and 34 Melrose Parade

·      2/34 Melrose Parade

·      3/34 Melrose Parade

·      4/34 Melrose Parade

·      5/34 Melrose Parade

·      6/34 Melrose Parade

·      36 Melrose Parade

·      38 Melrose Parade

 

Issue

Comment

Adverse visual and acoustic privacy impact

Noted and agreed, the application is recommended for refusal as the proposal will result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. See discussions in key issues section of this report.

 

The proposed roof terrace will present greater bulk and scale

Noted see discussion of key issues section below.

Additional height will cause loss of light

The additional balustrades are unlikely to result in loss of natural light

The proposed balustrades will result in excessive use of glazing across the development

Noted. The proposed balustrades will present poorly relative to the consistent forms of the open balconies below.

 

There will be no restriction on the time in which this roof terrace can be used

Noted. Imposing a condition restricting access to the roof terrace is not manageable as it is associated with a single unit and not under the control of body corporate.

 

The proposed roof terrace is horizontally level with the unit at No. 5/34 Melrose Parade

A site visit at the rear of subject site, survey information and review of plans suggests that the affected unit will be in a direct line of sight with the proposed roof terrace.

 

If the proposed terrace is approved how will noise be mitigated?

Noise amenity cannot be suitably ameliorated without adding bulk and scale to the development.

Any further addition to the roof will further compromise views from properties east of the site.

There is the potential for further view loss from a portion of the development that will exceed the maximum external wall height.

 

Key Issues

 

Zone R3: Medium Density Residential

The relevant objective of the zone R3: Medium Density Residential zone pertinent to this application is as follows:

 

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

 

The section 96 modification for a roof terrace including associated balustrade and stairwell will detract from the desired future character of the area. The original approval was supportable on the basis that the roof terrace inclusive of structures was deleted. It is also noted that the development at the front was relatively open at the front and exhibited a fluid architectural form between the front building line and front boundary creating a sense of depth and lightness in its expression. The proposed stairwell and roof terrace introduce physical elements to this part of the upper level balcony that will disrupt the openness of the development as viewed from the front thereby detracting from the desired future character of the area.

 

Randwick Development Control plan (RDCP) 2013 – Part C2 Medium Density Residential

The proposed modifications are assessed against the relevant provisions of the DCP. Particular reference is made to key parts of Part C2 Medium Density Residential development such as Roof Design and External wall height. The DCP provisions are structured into two components, Objectives and Controls. The Objectives provide the framework for assessment under each requirement and outline key outcomes that a development is expected to achieve. The controls contain both numerical standards and qualitative provisions. Any proposed variations from the controls may be considered only where the applicant successfully demonstrates that an alternative solution could result in a more desirable planning and urban design outcome.

 

Building facade

The proposed roof terrace introducing within the front upper level balcony a stairwell and balustrade to the roof and potentially impacts the building façade. In relation to building facades, the RDCP explains that the treatment and detailing of building facades has a significant impact on the apparent scale and proportion of developments and contribution to the streetscape. It further explains that a skillful façade design requires the appropriate disposition of building elements, textures, materials and colours, which reflect the function, internal layout and structure of a development.

 

The RDCP objective for building facades is to ensure that facades are articulated to complement and enhance the streetscape and neighbourhood character. The proposed staircase will be immediately noticeable from street level will disrupt the consistent open balcony forms across the front of the development.

 

The proposed stairs and balustrades within the upper level balcony will present disjointed scale and proportion and will detract from the streetscape character and will therefore not satisfy the objective under the RDCP for building facades

 

Figure 1 above shows the close proximity of the roof terrace to the front northern boundary of the subject site along Clovelly Road.

 

Roof Design

Section 4.2 vii) Roof Design of Part C2 - Medium Density Residential Development sets out the design and planning considerations for roof terraces on top of flat buildings. This section of the RDCP allows for terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof to be considered only if certain controls relating to privacy, architectural character and noise impacts are complied with. An assessment of the proposed roof terrace is considered against each of the RDCP listed controls as follows:

 

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

 

The roof terrace allows for unencumbered sightlines in all directions with direct sightlines to the rear neighbours habitable bedroom and living room windows at No. 34 Melrose Parade. Restricting sightlines through physical measures such as screens would also add unnecessary bulk to the development which is currently significantly exceeding the maximum external wall height control (section 4.4 of Part C2) along various parts of the development most notably along a sizable part of the western elevation. In addition, any additional structures on the roof such as balustrades, outdoor furniture and privacy screening could also result in potential view loss from neighbouring properties.

 

The proposed roof terrace and associated structures have the potential to also result in direct sightlines across to future development of neighbouring properties to the west and east at No’s 344-350 Clovelly Road and 354 Clovelly Road respectively. In this respect, the RLEP and RDCP envisages a three storey built form and if the adjoining properties were developed as such, the roof terrace would have direct sightlines across to the openings along the converse side elevations of neighbouring  properties as shown in figure 4 below. Essentially allowing a roof terrace in this location without any privacy screening would be tantamount to allowing for unobstructed view across to the eastern elevation of a future development at No. 344-350 Clovelly Road and western elevation of No. 354 Clovelly Road.

Figure 3: Sightlines across from the proposed roof terrace onto projected likely built form of neighbouring properties.

 

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

 

The roof terrace is in close proximity to the neighbouring properties without any physical noise buffers employed. Given this is a terrace associated with a single residential unit; it is not considered that conditions can be appropriately applied to the use of the terrace.

 

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

 

The proposed stairway is located at the front of the development and will be readily viewable from the street level. The proposed stairwell will also disrupt the relatively compatible open design of balconies across the front of the development over the three levels.

 

The proposal also adds 950mm to the existing 10.405m external wall height resulting in a height of 11.405m (Rl36.925-RL25.52) further adding mass to a development that already exceeds the maximum 10.5m external wall height control under the RDCP and shown in figure 4 below. The balustrades will project greater bulk and scale and therefore greater visual impact when viewed from the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. Moreover, the use of the terrace inclusive of furniture will also mean that there is the greater potential for adverse impact on views from surrounding properties. Having regard to the above the proposed balustrade associated with the roof terrace is not considered supportable having regard to this objective.

 

Figure 4: Western elevation showing the additional massing of the proposed development as a result of the proposed balustrade and location of the stairwell in the front balcony leading up to the roof terrace.

 

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

 

No shading devices, privacy screens or planters are proposed. As indicated earlier, any shading devices, privacy screens and planters will likely result in additional visual bulk of the building which will detract from the streetscape character. 

 

Visual and acoustic privacy

The development application should be refused because the proposed development does not satisfy the objectives and controls in clause 5.3 Visual Privacy and clause 5.4 Acoustic Privacy in Part C1 of RDCP 2013.

 

The objective of clause 5.3 visual privacy in Part C2 of RDCP 2013 is as follows:

 

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

 

The objective of clause 5.4 acoustic privacy in Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 is as follows:

 

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

·      To design buildings with adequate separation within the development and from adjoining properties

 

The proposed terrace will have an unobstructed view across to the north facing habitable room windows of units within the flat building at No.34 Melrose Parade. Whilst the proposed terrace is more than 20m from the rear elevation of these units one must have regard to whether there is a reasonable development expectation for the roof terrace. In this respect, the proposed roof terrace is an additional area of open space to approved and suitably dimensioned balcony below. The use of the roof terrace is connected to a living room which makes it more readily usable for entertaining purposes resulting in adverse noise impacts on the neighbouring properties. 

 

Given the above, the proposed roof terrace is on balance not considered to be representative of a reasonable development expectation given the location and potential for significant adverse visual and acoustic impacts on the 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 originally proposed roof terrace was deleted by including condition 2a in the determination. This was a key consideration in making the recommendation for approval of the original application. The proposed deletion of condition 2a is not supported as the proposal will result in poorer planning outcome than that which was achieved by the originally approved development, notwithstanding the minor variations to the configuration of the proposed roof terrace. In particular, the proposed roof terrace introduces building elements such as a stairwell and balustrades that will be viewable from the street and surrounding developments and will also disrupt the currently consistent architectural form across the front of the building. Introducing these building elements into the upper level and roof in this location will detract from the architectural language of the building and not meet the objectives of good building design thereby detracting from the streetscape character of the medium density zone.

 

In relation to neighbour’s amenity, the proposed roof terrace will result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties most notably allowing for direct sightlines into units facing the subject site from the rear and neighbouring dwellings to the east and west. Whilst additional physical privacy measures may be employed to minimise the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties – a key objective of the R3 zone and RDCP controls for visual and acoustic privacy, these measures will however unfortunately introduce disjointed elements of built form relative to the approved fluid lines and result in additional external walls, and bulk and scale to a development that already exceeds the maximum external wall height control which are not considered to contribute to the desired future character of the area.

 

Consequently, the section 96 application is recommended for refusal. 

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/674/2014/C for deletion of condition 2(a) to allow for construction of roof terrace, at No. 352 Clovelly Road, Clovelly, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential specified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that it will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and is not compatible with the scale of residential development in the medium density residential zone.

 

2.     The modified development as proposed does not satisfy the requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) in that it is not substantially the same as the development originally approved.

 

3.     The proposed The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls for Building façade in Section 4.1 of Part C2 Medium Density Residential of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013.

 

4.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives and controls for Roof Design in Section 4.2 of Part C2 Medium Density Residential of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013.

 

5.     The proposed roof terrace does not satisfy the objectives and controls for Visual and Acoustic Privacy in Section 5.3 and 5.4 of Part C2 Medium Density Residential of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013. The proposed roof terrace will have direct sightlines into the habitable room windows of units in the neighbouring building at No. 34 Melrose Parade and result in adverse acoustic privacy impact on the neighbouring properties.

 

6.     The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 79C(1) (b),(c) and (e) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for natural and built environmental impacts, suitability of the site, and the public interest.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 11 April 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D34/17

 

Subject:             28 Dolphin Street, Randwick (DA/726/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/726/2016

Author:                   Planning Ingenuity, Pty Ltd      

 

Proposal:                    Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of 2 storey attached dual occupancy, garages to front with first floor rumpus room above, spa pools to rear of garages, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Aetch Design Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Mr V A Wooldridge and Mrs A M Wooldridge

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external Planning consultant and referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the owners are related to a Randwick City Council employee.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site and the construction of a new attached, two storey dual occupancy development. Each dwelling includes:

 

·      Single garage at the street frontage (detached from dwelling with each garage sharing a common wall)

·      A spa and internal courtyard between the garage and main building

·      Ground floor living area, dining room, WC and kitchen with rear deck and courtyard, and

·      The main bedroom with ensuite, bathroom, second bedroom, TV room and study on the first floor.

 

Site

 

The site is known as 28 Dolphin Street, Randwick. The existing development on the site consists of a single storey dwelling house with a garage (Figure 1).

 

Figure 1: Existing dwelling on the site

 

To the east of the site is a two storey flat building at No. 30 Dolphin Street (Figure 2). To the west is a residential building at No. 1 St Luke Street which contains a two storey building fronting St Lukes St and a detached two storey building with a dwelling above four garages (Figure 3). Opposite the site are a mix of two storey dwellings and older style flat buildings (Figure 4).

 

Figure 2: No. 30 Dolphin Street

 

Figure 3: No. 1 St Luke Street

 

Figure 4: Development on the northern side of Dolphin Street

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:

 

·      1/27 Dolphin St, RANDWICK

·      30 Dolphin St, RANDWICK

·      1/30 Dolphin St, RANDWICK

·      1 St Luke St, RANDWICK

·      3 St Luke St, RANDWICK

 

Issues

Comments

Height in relation to overshadowing

The maximum height allowable on the site is 9.5m The proposed building has a maximum height of 7.8m. Refer to comments below regarding shadowing.

Overshadowing to neighbouring properties

The proposal complies with the DCP control of requiring a minimum of 3 hours solar access to neighbouring north-facing windows and private open space areas between 9am and 4pm during midwinter.

Site coverage exceedance and deep soil deficiency

The amended plans dated 27/2/17 demonstrate compliance with the site coverage and deep soil controls through the reduction in size of the proposed garages.

Window layout at rear

The rear-facing windows of each dwelling are suitable at ground level and first floor level (not living areas) and will not impact on privacy of adjoining neighbors.

Poor standard of Statement of Environmental Effects

The Statement of Environmental Effects, in conjunction with the information provided on the plans, is sufficient for council make a full assessment of the application.

Non-compliant Front Setback

The front setback is suitable for the site and context of the area. A condition is included in the consent requiring Garage B to be relocated 1m behind the façade of Garage A to provide a transition of front setbacks from west to east along Dolphin Street.

 

Unacceptable Built Form

The built form is considered suitable for the site and local context and will provide good amenity for future residents of the dwellings while reducing the bulk of the built form through building separation for neighbouring properties.

 

Parking – reduction in on-street parking

 

Each dwelling provides one car space as required by the DCP, thus reducing the need for on-street parking. The shared driveway is supported by council’s Development Engineer

.

Subdivision – is it proposed?

No subdivision is proposed.

 

Key Issues

 

The proposal is compliant with all relevant LEP development standards. The variations to the DCP controls (front setback, rear setback and front entry) are discussed below.

 

Variations to DCP Controls

 

Below is an assessment of the proposed variations to the front and rear setback controls and the location of the front entry of the dwellings.

 

Front Setback

The proposal has a setback from the garages to the front boundary of 1.17m.  The DCP requires the setback to be the average of the setbacks for neighbouring properties (which is 2.2m). The site is 10.9m wide and each dwelling contains two bedrooms, for which one car space is required per dwelling.

 

The objectives for setbacks are outlined in the DCP below along with assessment comments.

 

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

 

Comment: There is no consistent pattern to the character and form of front facades along this section of Dolphin Street and the proposal will not disrupt an existing or anticipated pattern of built form. The building to the west is a two storey residence with four single garages and the dwelling above (setback 1.6m from Dolphin Street). Adjoining the site to the east is a two storey residential flat building (circa 1960s) which is setback 2.8m from Dolphin Street. Neither adjoining property has a predominantly landscaped front setback.

 

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

 

Comment: Form and massing of the front façade is limited to a single storey garage and pedestrian entry with a landscaped garden at each side. A condition of consent has been included to set the façade of Garage B 1m back from the façade of Garage A to transition the setback of the built from east to west along Dolphin Street. The overall effect will be to break up the building form and mass and present elements of visual interest to the street.

 

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

 

Comment: The proposal achieves an appropriate level of separation to all neighbouring dwellings through providing compliant side setbacks, locating living areas at the ground floor, and minimizing first floor windows that face the side boundaries.

 

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

 

Comment:  Two private open space areas are provided through the separation of the garages and dwellings on the site. The central courtyard allows for a northern orientation and increased access to direct sunlight to the open space area and the living areas. The rear setback of the site provides an additional private open space area. Deep soil is provided along each side boundary between the rear of the garages and the rear boundary of the site, plus within the central courtyard and rear yard.

 

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

 

Comment:  The proposal achieves view sharing.  The proposed front setbacks and single storey garages will not unreasonably obstruct existing view lines.

 

For these reasons the proposed front setbacks and modulation of the front façade (via consent conditions) are considered to be consistent with the intention of the DCP despite the numeric non-compliance.

 

Rear setback

The proposal is setback 7.9m at the ground floor and 4.3m at the first floor from the rear boundary.  The required setback is 8m. The ground level façade is recessed beneath the first floor level.

 

The objectives for setback controls in the DCP are listed below along with assessment comments:

 

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

 

Comment: This objective does not apply to rear setbacks.

 

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

 

Comment: This objective does not apply to rear setbacks.

 

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

 

Comment: The variation to the rear setback will not compromise visual and acoustic privacy for neighbouring dwellings.  The study is located at the rear of the first floor in both dwellings. The window to each study is located above the desk in the study to allow light and outlook while seated. The study is a low activity area and will not have adverse visual or acoustic impacts on neighboring properties.

 

In relation to solar access to adjoining properties, due to the orientation of the site to the north (Dolphin Street) the extent of overshadowing of adjoining properties is not significantly increased as a result of the variation to the rear setback. The shadow cast by the proposed building is reasonably expected given the R3 zoning and maximum height limit of 9.5m, of which the proposal is well under at 7.5m

 

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

 

Comment: Each dwelling contains two areas of private open space containing deep soil opportunities for planting, one in the central courtyard and one in the rear setback. Each area is adequate in size to enable suitable tree planting and soft landscaping.

 

The two private open space areas break up the built form and the central courtyard allows direct solar access to living room windows. The rear courtyards use undercroft area as outdoor kitchen spaces which benefit from roof and partial enclosure by walls.

 

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

 

Comment:  The proposal achieves view sharing.  The proposed rear setback of the first floor level will not unreasonably obstruct existing views from the upper level of the flat building at No. 5 St Luke’s Street and look above the proposed roofline to distant views beyond the site.

 

For these reasons the proposed rear setback is considered to be consistent with the intention of the DCP despite the numeric non-compliance.

 

Front entry

Section 4.3(ii) to the DCP requires the main entrance to a dwelling must not be recessed behind the front facade alignment by more than 2m. Section 5.5 of the DCP requires the front entry to a dwelling to be located within the front façade and readily identifiable from the street unless the site has a narrow frontage.

 

The site is 10.9m wide and the front entry to both dwellings is located to the side of the garage and access to the main dwelling is via a pathway along the side boundaries and through the central courtyards.  Conditions are recommended for appropriate lighting and street numbering to the pillars at the sides of each garage indicating access to the main dwelling entry to assist with wayfinding and the requirement for intercoms and front gates to ensure access is available for pedestrians from the street.  Subject to these conditions the side entries are acceptable in the circumstances of the site width.

 

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 LEP and DCP controls, with the exception of front and rear setbacks, and front entry location. The design of the proposal has responded appropriately to the context and setting of the site and the variations are supported.  The proposal will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding natural or built environment nor will it have detrimental impacts to the amenity of neighbours 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. DA/726/2016 for the demolition of an existing single storey dwelling house and the construction of a new attached dual occupancy, at No. 28 Dolphin Street, Randwick, subject to the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report 28 Dolphin Street, RANDWICK Randwick City Council

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 11 April 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D35/17

 

Subject:             537 Anzac Parade, Kingsford (DA/905/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/905/2016

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

 

Proposal:                    Construction of a two storey dwelling with garage and associated works

Ward:                     West Ward

Applicant:                Wincrest Group Pty Ltd

Owner:                        Ms J L Coulter

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=33d5345b-127b-42e2-9c85-4e860f161497&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by external planning consultants and is referred to the Planning Committee for consideration as a Councillor owns the adjoining property to the subject site.

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to permission to erect a two storey dwelling house. Specific elements of the proposed development include:

 

·      A single garage, with access via Hincks Street;

·      Provision of ground floor living areas, with a kitchen and bedrooms;

·      First floor bedrooms, with additional living area;

·      An outdoor alfresco area;

·      Removal of vegetation; and

·      Associated landscaping works.

 

Site and Surrounds

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Anzac Parade, on the intersection with Hincks Street. It has a 9m frontage to Anzac Parade and a 4m frontage to Hincks Street, with a combined front boundary of 13m. With side boundaries of 48m and 50m, the site is triangular and has a total area of 322.5sqm. Known generally as 537 Anzac Parade, Kingsford, the site is legally described as Lot 3 in Deposited Plan (DP) 901058.

 

The site slopes gradually from front to rear, falling approximately 1 metre. Medium sized trees, lower planting and lawn occupy space in both the front and rear gardens. The site includes a single storey, clad cottage with a metal roof (Figure 2). This is to be demolished as part of a separate application lodged by Wincrest Homes.

 

Figure 2: Front of existing dwelling house.

 

Nearby Development

 

To the north of the site is Anzac Parade, which has two carriageways separated by an area of public open space. Further to the north is low to medium density housing.

 

To the east is a single storey cottage with a metal roof at No. 539 Anzac Parade. No vehicular access is provided as the house sits below Anzac Parade’s street level. The lot is triangular, and has similar private open space and built area to the subject site. 

To the south is a more recently developed two storey dwelling at No. 26 Broadbent Street, occupying a more conventionally-shaped lot. Private open space separates this dwelling from the subject site (Figure 3).

 

To the west is a red brick, single level house at No. 47 Hincks Street. Immediately beside this development are higher two storey dwellings, which occupy larger blocks of land.

 

Figure 3: Existing two storey forms adjacent to site (south). 

 

Submissions

 

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

 

·      47 Hincks St, Kingsford

 

Issue

Comments

Levels of visual privacy may be reduced as a result of the proposed development. Specifically, concerns include:

·      Ground floor windows 5, 8 and 9 will allow overlooking into habitable rooms.

·      The proposed first floor balcony will overlook rear private open space. 

·      Window 9 is located in a bedroom wall and is a sufficient distance from the adjacent dwelling to minimise privacy impacts. The 1800mm fence will also obstruct the view.

·      Window 8 will be a frosted bathroom window and will not compromise visual privacy.

·      Window 5 has been changed to a highlight window to meet this concern.

·      The proposed first floor balcony will be fitted with appropriate privacy screening. This will be required in the form of a non-standard condition.

 

Key Issues

 

The subject site is best described as an irregular site. It has an approximate width of 13m at the road frontage, before tapering to a width of 1m at the rear boundary. It is the central site in a group of five similar sites, which form the corner of Hincks Street and Anzac Parade. Two minor issues result from side setback controls and private open space requirements.

 

Setbacks

Measuring the site along the front lot boundary would result in a frontage of 13 metres. This would require a minimum 1200mm side setback, however given the tapering nature of the site the width of the site as measured at the front building line would be 11 metres.  As such a side setback of 900mm is considered appropriate for the site. The proposal meets a 900mm side setback.

 

Private Open Space

The rear open space requirement of a 6m x 6m space is unable to be achieved on a triangular lot of this size. As the rear space is generally less than the minimum width of 6m the open space was calculated using the total area of the rear garden. The resultant area was considered to allow for suitable levels of residential amenity.

 

Aside from these merit-based assessments, the proposal is compliant with the relevant controls.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The proposal is considered to meet the following relevant Randwick Council City Plan outcome as follows, inter alia:

 

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.Whilst there are two deviations from the controls owing to the site’s irregular shape, no other issues regarding the site or design arise. The proposal is considered to have acceptable impacts on the environment and residential amenity of adjacent properties. This application is therefore worthy of Council 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. DA/905/2016 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and construction of a new 2 storey dwelling house, at No. 537 Anzac Parade, Kingsford, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non-standard conditions

2.       a.     Details of 1800mm high fencing along both side boundaries are to be included in the Construction Certificate. Reason: To provide visual privacy to the residents and neighbours.

 

         b.     A 1600mm high privacy screen must be provided to the eastern and western edges of the first floor rear balcony. The privacy screens must be constructed with either:

 

·          Translucent or obscured glazing;

·          Fixed lattice/slats with individual openings not more than 30mm wide;

·          Fixed vertical or horizontal louvres with the individual blades angled and spaced appropriately to prevent overlooking into the private open space or windows of the adjacent dwellings.

 

Details are to be submitted to Council’s Manager Development Assessment prior to issuing a construction certificate. The screen is to be a permanent fixture. Reason: To provide visual privacy between residents.

 

29.     In order to comply with Clause 2.4 (Part C1) of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan, a tree must be planted in the site. When mature it must reach a height of between 4-8m. The selected tree is to be located in the front setback to contribute to the streetscape.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 537 Anzac Parade, KINGSFORD 

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 11 April 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D36/17

 

Subject:             14 Close Street, South Coogee (DA/224/2016/A)

Folder No:                   DA/224/2016/A

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

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the approved development by extending the front garage and planter box above by 1m towards Close Street boundary and relocation of the rear deck towards northern side boundary by 951mm. Original consent: Demolition of existing dwelling, construction of new 3 level dwelling including garage, swimming pool to rear, landscaping and associated works

Ward:                     East Ward

Applicant:                Archebiosis Design

Owner:                        Mr C D Bolton

Summary

Recommendation:     Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

This application was assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Planning Committee for determination as a Randwick City Councillor lives in close proximity to the site and the original application was determined by Council.

 

Proposal

 

The proposed Section 96(2) modification seeks the following amendments to the approved development:

 

§ Extension of the front undercroft garage and planter above by 1m, towards the Close Street / front boundary. A 1m wide planter box will be established at the upper level of the undercroft garage extension; and

 

§ Relocation of the first floor rear deck by way of increasing the southern side setback by 494mm and reducing the northern side setback by 951mm. The proposed modifications result in the deck being increased in size, from 13.8m2 to 15.29m2.

 

The modifications to the front undercroft garage are required to provide additional structural support to the dwelling.

 

The extension of the undercroft will continue to be setback from the front building alignment of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 16 Close Street. The proposed amendments are considered to be appropriate for the subject site and adjoining semi-detached dwelling and would therefore that this would result in any additional adverse amenity or streetscape impacts, noting that the approved garage will remain recessed within the undercroft.

 

The proposed planter box above the undercroft is consistent with the planter box at 16 Close Street and therefore results in a compatible streetscape outcome.

 

The relocation and expansion of the first floor rear deck results in a more consistent alignment with the door frame. The balcony retains the 1.8m high opaque glazing along the northern and southern perimeter of the terrace, which is considered to alleviate any potential mutual privacy impacts.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Close Street between Pearce Street to the north and Cuzco Street to the south. The site has a frontage of 8.31m to Close Street, depth of 37.7metres and site area of 313.5sqm.

 

The site contains a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling which forms a pair with 16 Close Street on its southern side.

 

The site slope up steeply from Close Street up to the rear of the site which is overlooked by the elevated properties addressed to Denning Street the west.

 

The rear yard behind the existing dwelling slopes steeply up to the rear boundary and comprises a series of dilapidated terraces as well as a staircase along the northern boundary. There is no connection between the rear of the dwelling house and the rear yard due to the steep slope of the site.

 

The site does not contain any significant vegetation and is not heritage listed.

 

The site shares a common wall and roof with the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 16 Close Street which is a mirror image of the subject semi-detached dwelling. The sloping rear yard up to the west is also consistent with the rear yard of the subject site.

 

Figure 1- the subject semi is on the northern side of the pair, shown above

 

Figure 2- rear of the existing semi, showing its interrelationship with the adjoining semi at 16 Close Street to the south

 

Immediately to the north of the subject site is a part one, part two storey detached residential dwelling. This dwelling has its primary openings to the front and rear with only opaque glass openings on the southern side which face the subject site. The rear yard of the northern neighbour slopes steeply up to the rear of the site in a similar manner to the subject site.

 

Figure 3- photo of northern neighbouring detached dwelling at 12 Close Street which has a double carport within the front setback.

 

Figure 4- photo showing the existing inter-relationship with the northern neighbour, noting that the south-facing windows on the adjoining property at the front are fixed and opaque

 

Section 96 Assessment:

Under the provisions of Section 96 of the Environmental Plan and Assessment Act, 1979, as amended, Council may only agree to a modification of an existing Development Consent if the following criteria has been complies 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.

 

Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. As a result of the notification no submission were received.  

 

Key Issues

 

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

The proposed modifications are considered minor and will not be inconsistent with the objectives and provisions of the DCP and in particular sub-clause 4.2, which specifically relates to semi-detached dwellings.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed modifications have been assessed against the relevant criteria and the development is considered to remain substantially the same as the original approval, therefore the proposal is considered acceptable. 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.

 

Overall, the proposed modifications are suitable for the site and satisfy the relevant assessment criteria and will not result in any significant adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the conditions of consent, as amended.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Application No. DA/224/2016/A for the extension of the front undercroft and planter box above by 1m and towards the Close Street boundary and relocation and extension of the rear deck towards the northern side boundary by 951mm, at No. 14 Close Street, South Coogee, in the following manner:

 

·           Amend Condition No. 1 to read:

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 consent:

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

SK102-107

Archebiosis Design

2 August 2016 (Issue B)

2 August 2016

SK200-203

Archebiosis Design

2 August 2016 (Issue B)

2 August 2016

SK300-301

Archebiosis Design

2 August 2016 (Issue B)

2 August 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

718269S

29 April 2016

2 May 2016

 

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

Received by Council

S96100-S96103

Archebiosis Design

6 February 2017

6 February 2017

S96200-S96203

Archebiosis Design

6 February 2017

6 February 2017

S96300-S96301

Archebiosis Design

6 February 2017

6 February 2017

 

·           An amended Landscape Plan is to be submitted and endorsed by Council’s landscape architect which indicates the landscape species chosen for the planter box. The planter box is to have a minimum soil depth of 600mm and be a minimum width of 1m.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                 11 April 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D37/17

 

Subject:             137 Carrington Road, Coogee (DA/88/2014/D)

Folder No:                   DA/88/2014/D

Author:                   Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                    Section 96 modification of the Land and Environment Court approval by increase in size of Unit 8 on level 5 plus increase in balcony size on eastern and southern sides

Ward:                     North Ward

Applicant:                Mr E H K Karlsson

Owner:                        Ms A Petrou

Summary

Recommendation:     Refusal

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Section 96 application (AA) is referred to the Planning Committee as the original application was determined by the Land and Environment Court.

 

 

1.   Proposal

 

The section 96 application seeks the following modifications:

 

·      Increase the floor area of unit 8 by 13.45sqm resulting in an FSR of 1.12:1 exceeding the 0.9:1 maximum under the RLEP 2012. The additional floor area is located predominately at the front of the upper level unit (unit 8) facing Carrington Road.

·      New balcony along the southern side and

·      Extension of rear eastern balcony to the rear and southern side

 

Amended information: An amended Statement of environmental effects was submitted to correcting the reference to the approved and proposed modifications in relation to visual sightlines.

 

2.   Application history

 

Original application:

 

Demolish an existing two storey dwelling house and construct a residential flat building at No. 137 Carrington Road, Coogee.

 

Council refused consent on 12 August 2014 at Council Planning Committee Meeting on 12 August 2014.

 

The matter was the subject of an appeal to the Land and Environment Court (L&E Court) and as a result of a conciliation conference conducted by a Commissioner of the Court a conditional consent was granted on 15 May, 2015 for demolition of existing structures and construction of a part 4 and part 2 storey multi-unit development in 2 building forms. The approved development comprises eight (8) units (1 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed and 1 x 3 bed + study), parking for 13 vehicles at semi-basement and ground levels, associated landscaping and site works (variation to building height standard).

 

Assessment history:

 

The Court granted the applicant leave to amend the development application and rely upon the amended plans and documentation an order for the submission of amended plans made 28 January 2015 by an order of the court. The amended plans were dated 12/01/2015 and landscape plans dated Jan 15, and Dec 14 that addressed the majority of contentions in the case with the main issue relating to privacy, and shadowing impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Privacy

The original application refused by Council is shown in figure 1 below. In Figure 2 also shown further below, the amended plans received by the Courts show the resolved level 5 plan increasing the front setback from the level below, deleting the front and southern side balconies and reducing the size of the rear east facing balcony. It is noted that in the joint experts, there was agreement that having regard to the amended scheme (figure 2) that through placement and design of window openings and balconies the proposal will not result in any adverse visual privacy relationships and the aural privacy relationship will be similar to that between surrounding residential flat buildings.

Figure 1: Original plan refused by Council. The amendment made during the court proceedings are shown below in figure 2. The amendments are a reduction of the rear balcony, and deletion of the southern side balcony and front balcony.

 

Figure 2: plan approved by Court as amended. Note increased separation between the front elevation and levels below; reduction in size of balconies.

 

Shadowing

Overshadowing was considered in the assessment of the application during the court proceedings. The overshadowing to the neighbouring properties was considered largely an unavoidable consequence of the site conditions and suitable levels of solar access would be retained to neighbouring properties. A summary of overshadowing and solar access relative to neighbouring properties is provided as follows:

 

·      No. 139-141 Carrington Road:

 

No 139-141 Carrington Road is located south of the site. It was agreed during conciliation that this site is particularly vulnerable to shadowing impact and that a compliant development in terms of height and setbacks would likely result in greater shadowing than that occurring as part of the development.

 

·      No. 28 Raleigh Street:

 

No. 28 Raleigh Street is located south east of the site, and the shadow diagrams provided and assessed as part of a joint experts report found that there would be acceptable shadow impacts on the north facing side windows, west facing rear ground level windows and a hypothetical first floor addition. The resultant impact on W14 would be minor and negligible representing only 10% of the window surface and did not warrant refusal of the application.

 

·      No. 30 Raleigh Street:

 

The additional shadow will occur between 2.30pm and 3pm

 

·      No. 32 Raleigh Street:

 

Solar access would be retained between 8am and 2pm.

 

Section 96 “A”:

 

On the 27th October 2015 approval was granted by way of a Section 96 (AA) at an Ordinary council meeting for the modification of the original Land and Environment Court approval by alterations to the vehicle access ramp, basement layout, relocation of the waste storage, provision of 5 storage rooms on level 2 (level below the upper most level) and additional floor space for unit 3 by construction of a western second floor exterior wall with a nil set back.

 

Section 96 “B”:

 

On 18 December 2015 approval was granted by way of a Section 96 (AA) application to modify condition 79 of the consent relating to undergrounding of overhead power lines.

 

Section 96 “C”: Withdrawn.

 

3.   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

 

Council may only approve an application under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 if “it is satisfied that the development to which the consent as modified relates is substantially the same development as the development for which consent was originally granted and before that consent as originally granted was modified (if at all) under this section”.

 

The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original approved development for a flat building. However, having regard to the matters that lead to the approval of the original application, it is considered that the recommendation for approval was subject to the reduction and deletion of balconies at the upper level including setting the upper level further from the front elevation. In other words, these amendments are considered to be an essential element of the development that lead to agreement reached between the parties achieving reasonable protection of the neighbouring and surrounding properties visual and acoustic privacy and bulk and scale as viewed from the streetscape and the surrounding properties.

 

Based on the above assessment, it is not considered that the section 96 application will remain substantially the same development as that originally approved. Notwithstanding, an assessment is carried out against the proposed modifications.

 

4.   Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Carrington Road between Glebe Street and Alison Road and has a frontage of 13.41m, depth of 59.18m/63.36m and a site area of 822sqm. The site falls sharply in a south easterly direction, with an 11m difference representing a steep sloping gradient of 18.5%. The neighbouring property to the south is an RFB, 9.5m in height, at No. 139-141 Carrington Road. To the north is an RFB, of up to four storeys, at No. 135 Carrington Road. To the south east is the side and rear boundaries of properties fronting and accessed off Raleigh Street (No. 28, 30 & 32) and Pauling Avenue (No. 25 & 27) in a more easterly direction.

 

Aerial view: Subject site bounded in green and neighbouring properties. Note land falls from north to south and west to east.

 

Surrounding developments to the north east and south predominately comprise RFB’s with these located in R3 Medium density residential Zone. The properties located to the east are comprised of single and semi-detached dwellings located within the R2 Low density residential Zone – as shown in the zone diagram below.

 

Zone view of the subject site and surrounding zones.

 

5.   Submissions

 

The owners of adjoining and likely affected neighbouring properties were notified of the proposed development in accordance with the Randwick Comprehensive DCP 2013. The following submissions were received with attention to relevant issues identified and addressed further below:

 

23 Pauling Avenue

25 Pauling Avenue

30 Raleigh Street

32 Raleigh Street

1, 2 ,3, 4, 6 and 7 of 135 Carrington Road

1/139 Carrington Road

2/139 Carrington Road

3/139 Carrington Road

 

Issue

Comment

Object to the proposed modifications to the balconies on level 5 as they will result in loss of privacy and the court approved plans specifically provided for the non-trafficable area on the balcony to address the privacy issues of the neighbouring properties.

 

Noted and agreed, the application is recommended for refusal as the proposal will result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. See discussion in key issues section of this report

The proposed development will result in significant overshadowing 

The additional gross floor area will result in additional overshadowing to the north facing windows and the roof terrace of No. 139 Carrington Road and is considered unreasonable

The extension of the floor area and balcony to the west will allow for outlook into front courtyard of no. 139 Carrington Road

Agreed

Request privacy screens installed to all windows facing 135 Carrington Road

There are no changes proposed to the north facing windows

Request privacy screens to be a minimum 1800mm high to northern side of all balconies.

 

The proposed modification is to extend the eastern side upper level balcony. These are not supported and refused, therefore the existing approved layout will not be altered

The proposed development will also overshadow the outdoor areas of No. 139 Carrington Road.

See discussion of solar access and floor space ratio in the key issues section of this report. The additional overshadowing is considered unreasonable and indicated as reason for refusal

The proposed development results in loss of privacy to the surrounding properties.

The proposed rear extension to the balcony has adequate separation from the rear of properties along Raleigh Street and Pauling Avenue for the purposes of visual privacy protection having regard to sightlines into areas of private open space and habitable areas. However the proposed extensions and conversion of non-trafficable roof for balconies and the large size of the extensions results in adverse visual privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties to the north and south and adverse acoustic privacy impacts on surrounding properties.

The approved development was a compromise in the Land and Environment Court proceedings

Noted, however each application is assessed on its merits

 

6.   Key Issues

 

SEPP 65 – Apartment design guide

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposed modifications are subject to the policy as it involves the modification of an approved residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height containing four or more dwellings. The proposal has been considered by Council’s Design Review Panel and the panel raised several concerns with the development and would only support a 1.5m depth increase to the balconies along the southern side of the bedrooms. Notwithstanding, an assessment is required to be carried out against the ADG. In accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide against the relevant design criteria/control requirements. Any non-compliance to the design criteria/controls includes a merits based assessment as per the design guidance provided by the Apartment Design Guide.

 

OrientationObjective 3B – 2: Solar access to neighbouring properties

 

Shadow diagrams:

The documentation submitted with the application includes hour by hour shadow diagrams between 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice and the shadowing impacts on the neighbouring properties emphasis particular parts of the neighbouring properties:

 

·      North elevation of No. 28 Raleigh Street

·      North elevation of No. 30 Raleigh Street;

·      North elevation of No. 139 Carrington Road

·      Shadow diagrams in plan form.

 

The ADG controls for solar access to neighbouring properties are located in Part 3B- 2. The ADG requires that overshadowing of neighbouring properties to be minimised during mid-winter. Objective 3B-2 also refers to Section 4A Solar and daylight access controls that require Living rooms and private open spaces in a building to receive a minimum of 2 hours direct sunlight (also applying to neighbouring properties) between 9 am and 3 pm at mid-winter. It is noted that the ADG requirement for two hours is 1 hour less than the 3 hours required under Part C2 Medium Density Residential in the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP). The ADG controls override the RDCP controls as per Clause 6A of the SEPP 65 which states:

 

6A    Development control plans cannot be inconsistent with Apartment Design Guide

 

(1)  This clause applies in respect of the objectives, design criteria and design guidance set out in Parts 3 and 4 of the Apartment Design Guide for the following:

 

(a)  visual privacy,

 

(b)  solar and daylight access,

 

Overshadowing impacts:

 

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application show additional overshadowing on neighbouring properties as follows:

 

·      No 30 Raleigh Street: The additional shadows will be cast onto the roof plane at just before and up to 3pm and there is no appreciable difference in overshadowing to the northern elevation as this is a semi-detached dwelling on the southern side of another semi-detached dwelling at No. 32 Raleigh Street. The two hours of solar access will be retained between 8am and 2pm and complies with the ADG controls.

·      No. 28 Raleigh Street: The proposed additional floor area casts additional shadows onto the northern elevation between 2pm and 3pm. It is noted that the Land and Environment Court consent orders for the original determination found three western most windows (W10 eat-in kitchen, W11 - bathroom & W12 west part of the living/dining area) received 3 hours of solar access (between 11.30am and 2.30pm) and were not impacted by the proposed development. The pair of windows in the eastern part of the living/dining area (W13 & W14) received 2 hours of sun and the proposal impacted only marginally one of these windows (W14) for approximately half an hour.  The elevation shadow diagrams received as part of the previous application show that there will be progressively greater shadowing impact on these two windows (W13 and W14) between 2pm and 3pm. The additional shadows cast by the proposed modifications on these windows will continue to comply with the ADG required two hours of direct sunlight between the hours of 12noon and up to 2pm ensuring a minimum of 2 hours of solar access to a living room window and therefore compliance with the ADG controls.

·      139-141 Carrington Road; The proposed additional floor area will result in progressively greater shadow impacts on this neighbour’s north facing windows between 3pm and 4pm during mid-winter as shown in figures 3 and 4 below. The ADG states that where there is less than two hours of direct solar access to living areas that this not be reduced by more than 20%. The elevation shadow diagrams, see figures 3 & 4 below, show that at 3pm and 4pm there will be significantly greater than 20% additional shadows cast onto the north facing living room windows of this neighbours north facing windows located in the middle of the building. The proposed additional floor area does not meet the ADG controls.

 

Figure 3: Additional shadow cast onto the north facing living and dining room windows of No. 139-141 Carrington Road.

 

 

 

Figure 4: Additional Shadows cast onto the north facing living and dining room windows of No. 139-141 Carrington Road.

 

Roof terrace of No. 139-141 Carrington Road.

The proposed additional floor area at the front of the site will result in additional showing impact on the roof terraces of No. 139-141 Carrington Road. An analysis of shadows between 8am and 4pm during the winter solstice reveals that the neighbour’s roof terraces will be subject to greater levels of shadowing.

 

Overall, having regard to the above analysis of additional shadowing, the proposed modifications seeking additional floor area, planters and balustrades will result in additional shadowing to the northern elevation, courtyard and roof terraces of No. 139-141 Carrington Road. As the additional shadowing is associated with non-compliant floor space ratio and balcony extensions that are well above the minimum required under the ADG, it is not considered that there is a reasonable development expectation for these modifications to the development. It is considered that a more appropriate planning outcome would be to delete the additional bathroom thereby retaining the existing shadowing impact.

 

Objective 3F - Visual Privacy and Objective 4H-1 Acoustic privacy

The ADG requires for the purposes of providing reasonable levels of visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties, that habitable areas including attached balconies be separated by a minimum of 6m from boundaries and 12m combined separation from habitable areas (including balconies) on neighbouring properties. However, it is acknowledged that it is difficult to achieve these minimum separation distances, particularly where allotment widths within the urban subdivision pattern of the RLGA is prevalent in the medium density zone. Notwithstanding, as provided for by the ADG, a merit assessment is carried out against the design guidance and explanation for visual and acoustic privacy which states as follows:

 

“Visual privacy balances site and context specific design solutions with views, outlook, ventilation and solar access. The adjacent context, site configuration, topography, the scale of the development and the apartment layout all need to be considered. Degrees of privacy are also influenced by a number of factors including the activities of each of the spaces where overlooking may occur, the times and frequency these spaces are being used, the expectations of occupants for privacy and their ability to control overlooking with screening devices. Degrees of privacy are also influenced by a number of factors including the activities of each of the spaces where overlooking may occur, the times and frequency these spaces are being used, the expectations of occupants for privacy and their ability to control overlooking with screening devices.”

 

In addition, the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013 specifically in Section 5.3 Visual privacy and 5.4 Acoustic privacy also assists by providing objectives for visual and acoustic privacy. The relevant objectives for visual and acoustic privacy in part C2 of the RDCP seek:

 

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

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

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

·      To design buildings with adequate separation within the development and from adjoining properties

 

An assessment is carried out against the following modifications sought as part of this section 96 application:

 

1.  Convert non-trafficable roof (red outline in figure 5) into southern side balcony wrapping around to the rear of the site. (shown in red outline in figure 6)

2.  Increase size of rear east facing balcony to unit 8 from 22.686sqm (4.2m x 5.4m) to 43.5sqm (5.8m x 7.5m). See blue outline in figure 5 and red outline in figure 6.

 

Note: Figure 5 & 6 below show the approved balcony (bounded green) and proposed balcony (bounded in red respectively.

 

 

Figure 5: Approved balcony shown bounded in green. Non-trafficable area shown bounded in red.

 

Figure 6: Proposed balcony extension shown bounded in red. The trafficable area is now surrounding the southern side wrapping around to a larger eastern rear balcony. The proposal also includes additional planter boxes along the southern side of the building. 

 

1.  Convert non-trafficable roof into balconies along the southern side of unit 8 on the top level (level 5);

 

The proposed conversion of non-trafficable roof into a balcony will allow for sightlines to the north facing windows and roof terrace of the adjoining flat building at No. 1439-141 Carrington Road and will be in close proximity to the habitable rooms of No. 135 Carrington Road.

 

Itis noted that landscape planters are provided along portions of the southern side of the proposed balconies however these planters don’t provide sufficient privacy for the following reasons:

 

The existing hob along the southern elevation measures for the most part only 200mm which would not allow for a sufficient soil depth for planting; notwithstanding, reliance on landscaping as a primary privacy measures is not considered adequate as it relies on the maintenance of planting by the proponent of the development. It is also noted that a portion of the southern side of the balcony (in the middle) does not have any landscaping as an additional privacy measure.

 

The location of the southern balcony is an extension of the eastern rear balcony forming a contiguous area of open space that is directly accessible from living areas, which means that it has the capacity to be used to entertain large groups of people. This has the potential to result in adverse visual privacy impacts as well as adverse acoustic privacy impacts (See section 4H-1 of the ADG below) on neighbouring properties.

 

Landscaping would not provide a suitable acoustic barrier without more robust screening which would result in additional visual massing along the southern elevation detracting from the visual amenity and solar access of neighbouring properties.

 

For the reasons outlined above, it is not considered that the proposed conversion of non-trafficable roof into a balcony along the southern side of the building will satisfy the visual and acoustic privacy objectives in the ADG or those in the RDCP for medium density residential development.

 

2.  Increase in size of rear east facing balcony to unit 8

 

The proposed extension of the balcony at the rear of unit 8 is directly adjacent to and in close proximity to the habitable rooms of the flat building in 135 Carrington Road and does not provide adequate separation from neighbouring buildings/adjacent uses. The proposed extension of the rear balcony to the east and to the south is considered an overdevelopment and will not satisfy the visual and acoustic (Section 4H-1) privacy objectives in the ADG or the RDCP for the following reasons:

 

The size of the balcony is almost double the size of the existing balcony;

The proposed balcony area at the rear (not including the southern side balcony area) is over three and a half times the size of the 12sqm minimum area required under the ADG. It is also over three times the 2.4m minimum depth required for three bedroom apartments under the ADG (Section 4E Private open space and balconies); The proposed extension to the rear balcony in combination with the impacts is considered an overdevelopment that will result in adverse privacy impacts and not considered a reasonable development expectation.

The proposed balcony size is excessive in size and poorly located relative to the neighbouring properties. The proposed balcony has the potential to be used by large groups of people for entertaining purposes which in combination with the close proximity of this balcony to the neighbouring properties habitable rooms and balconies, will not achieve adequate acoustic privacy protection. It is also considered that additional privacy measures such as solid screens will not adequately mitigate the potential for adverse acoustic amenity of neighbouring properties without adding to the visual bulk and scale and potential overshadowing of neighbouring properties.

 

Overall, the modifications sought to the top level (5) unit 8 balcony does not satisfy the relevant controls or design objectives under the ADG or the RDCP and will result in unreasonable adverse visual and acoustic privacy impacts on neighbouring properties. This aspect of the proposed development is therefore not supportable.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Clause 4.4 Floor space ratio

The proposed modification seeks to add an additional 13.45sqm to the approved development which results in an increase in the FSR on site from 1.00:1 up to 1.12:1 - a 1.6% increase in floor area. As indicated in the preceding section the proposed additional floor area does not satisfy the objective (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. In particular the proposed development will result in additional shadowing to the north facing windows and courtyard of No. 139-141 Carrington Road. The proposal will also result in adverse privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. It is also considered that the increased floor area at the front will reduce the articulation at the front providing a reduction in the separation between the front elevation of levels 1 to 4 and level 5 resulting in a greater bulk at the front elevation.

 

 

Figure 8: approved development showing a setback of level 5 from the levels below demonstrating distinction in built form between the solid base and the lighter upper level.

 

 

Figure 9: Proposed Section 96 modification seeking additional floor area at the front reducing modulation and resulting in additional bulk at the front of the site.

 

Overall, in terms of articulation and modulation of the development at the front, it is considered that the approved development provides a greater step from the front at the upper level and provides less bulk and scale and will achieve a better planning outcome. Moreover, given the additional impacts associated with the additional floor area it is considered a better planning outcome would be to remove one bathroom from the three bedroom apartment rather than increase the apartment size to meet the ADG minimum requirements for a three bedroom apartment.

 

Referral

 

·      Design review panel:

The subject section 96 “D” application was not referred to the panel due to the fact that it is similar to the previous Section 96 “C” application which was the subject of review by the DRP panel. The DRP panel comments provided as follows:

 

INTRODUCTION

It was noted that this was a Development Application and the first Panel meeting with the applicant.

 

A copy of the nine SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles are attached.  The Panel’s comments, set out below, are to assist Randwick Council in its consideration of the application, and to assist applicants to achieve better design outcomes in relation to these principles.

 

The absence of a comment under any of the heads of consideration does not necessarily imply that the Panel considers the particular matter has been satisfactorily addressed, as it may be that changes suggested under other heads will generate a desirable change.

 

The Panel draws the attention of applicants to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG), as published by Planning NSW (JULY 2015), which provides guidance on all the issues addressed below.

 

This document is available from the Department of Planning Environment

 

Note:  The Panel members’ written and verbal comments are their professional opinions, based on their experience.

 

To address the Panel's comments, the applicant may need to submit amended plans.  Prior to preparing any amended plans, the applicant should discuss the Panel's comments and any other matter that may require amendment with the assessing Planning Officer.

 

When addressing the Panel's comments by way of amendments, if the applicant does not propose to address all or the bulk of the Panel's comments, and wishes to make minor amendments only, then it should be taken that the Panel considers the proposal does not meet the SEPP 65 requirements.  In these instances it is unlikely the scheme will be referred back to the Panel for further review.

 

PANEL COMMENTS

This application was referred to Panel without the applicant present.

 

The Panel understands that this is a Section 96 to a Court approved Development Application and the third time it has reviewed a proposal for this site (previous reports in April 2014 and June 2014). Council had rejected the DA and the Panel considered the proposal fell well short of SEPP 65 standards. The Panel has not seen the Court judgement, and unless the DA was substantially modified post the DRP meeting, does not understand how it could have been approved. Some comments from previous reports are retained where relevant.

 

The Panel has visited the site and is familiar with the local area.

 

As the Panel understands that this is a modification to a 2014 application, it is assumed that the RFDC rather than the new ADG applies, although the SEE makes reference to the ADG.

 

The proposal is for the demolition of an existing two storey brick unit building and construction of 8 apartments in a 5 storey building. The site is on the eastern (lower) side of Carrington Road and falls very steeply away from the road by some 10 metres to the eastern boundary. 

 

The S96 information presented is scant as it primarily applies to modifications to the approved top storey – Unit 8 and its terraces. The Panel considers the design is poor and does not meet SEPP 65 or ADG requirements;

 

·      the overall form is clumsy and sits awkwardly on its site – such stepping ‘wedding cake’ arrangements are a poor match for the site and context

·      no justification is given for the increase in area for the penthouse nor the reduction in setback for this top level (FSR now 1.2:1)

·      the top floor is very poorly integrated with the floors below – it is different in material and expression, and has no discernable relationship to the storeys below

·      this 5th storey is quite bald in character, and openings on all sides lack any weather protection, sun or privacy screening

·      stair and lift access to the unit are not at all considered, and relate poorly to the planning. How is maintenance to the lift carried out?

·      protection of openings within 3m of boundaries remains unresolved

·      the various balconies are unconvincing appendages to the rectangular mass: the rear balconies form an awkward cascade at the rear of the block, while the upper balcony is poorly related to the overall mass

·      the extent and limits of the roof terrace is indeterminate – the Panel does not support the increase in size of the roof terraces as proposed, except for an area limited to 1.5m wide outside the bedrooms

·      safe maintenance access to the planters has not been shown

·      privacy screens on balconies need to be included

·      the penthouse remains poorly planned, and does not make good use of the area available

·      as required by the ADG, building and room dimensions need to be added

·      ceiling fans should be provided in bedrooms and living areas

·      the laundry opening directly to the living room is very poor

·      any required fire shutters should be described on the elevations

·      any air conditioning units on balconies close to boundaries need acoustic consideration and screening

·      window types and operation to accommodate different weather conditions, and allow occupants a variety of ventilation options whilst maintaining security – not done

·      credible large scale sections showing roof, wall, downpipe, sun hood, window, balcony and balustrade details are to be provided for review.

·      roof construction and insulation needs to provide effective thermal comfort to the top floor apartments.

·      the aesthetic character remains undistinguished and lacking in the required detail. Not satisfactory – the proposal fails SEPP 65 and RFDC requirement

·      the drawings remain deficient and diagrammatic

·      the proposed south elevation is more awkward and less coordinated than the court approved south elevation.

·      the driveway should have some landscape treatment along the boundary to reduce the negative impact on the neighbours.

 

SUMMERY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel does not support many of the changes sought in this application, as the proposal is well below SEPP 65 and ADG requirements. The S96 should be amended in line with the comments above.

 

The panel does not support the proposed modifications on the basis of good design and minimising the impact on the neighbouring properties. Whilst the panel supports the provision of balconies to the bedrooms it is considered that the fact that the balconies wrap around to the rear balcony attached to the living room and contain no privacy provisions it is not considered that adequate privacy protection will be maintained with 1.5m deep balconies.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal seeks to accommodate additional floor area up to the minimum 95sqm required by the ADG for a three bedroom apartment with two bathrooms. The proposed modifications to the upper level result in less articulation facing Carrington Road, the larger bulk results in direct impacts in terms of shadowing to the neighbouring properties north facing windows and areas of private open space; the increase in balcony areas will also directly result in adverse visual and acoustic privacy, including additional bulk created by landscaping; the larger balconies will also result in greater noise impacts on surrounding developments. Given the additional impacts from these modifications it may be considered that a better planning outcome would be achieved by deleting one of the bathrooms from the approved development.

 

The proposed Section 96 application does not comply with key relevant assessment criteria and will result in significant adverse impacts upon the amenity of the adjoining premises and the desired character of the area. In short the proposed development does not meet the key objectives of the R3 Medium Density zone or the key objectives of the FSR standard.

 

For the reasons discussed in this report and identified in the recommendation section below the application is therefore recommended for refusal.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/88/2014C for modification of the approved development by increase of floor area and internal alterations of level 5 with new south facing balcony, increase in size of east facing balcony plus new roof garden to north and west at No. 137 Carrington Road, Coogee, for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives of the R3 Medium Density Residential specified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The proposed development is unacceptable and unreasonable in that it will contain less articulation at the front of the development and will have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents and is not compatible with the scale of residential development in the Medium density residential zone.

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy the objective of floor space ratio standards under Clause 4.4 of Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Clause 33 and Principle 3: Density of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 –Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

3.     The proposal does not satisfy the controls or the design guidance under Objective 3F - Visual Privacy of the ADG and Clause 33 and principle 6: Amenity of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 –Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

4.     The proposal does not satisfy the controls or the design guidance under Objective 4H-1 Acoustic Privacy of the ADG and Clause 33 Principle 6: Amenity of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 –Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

5.     The proposal does not satisfy the controls or the design guidance under Orientation – Objective 3B – 2: Solar Access of the ADG and Clause 33 Principle 6: Amenity of State Environmental Planning Policy No 65 –Design Quality of Residential Flat Buildings.

 

6.     The proposal does not satisfy the objectives or controls in Section 5.3 and 5.4 relating to Visual and Acoustic Privacy in Part C2 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan 2013.

 

7.     The proposal will result in additional impact on the solar access to the living rooms, courtyard and roof terraces of the building and site at No. 139 Carrington Road, Coogee.

 

8.     The proposal will impact on the visual and acoustic privacy of the roof terrace, habitable rooms and private open spaces of units in the neighbouring buildings at No’s 135 Carrington Road and 139 Carrington Road.

 

9.     The modified development as proposed does not satisfy the requirements under Section 96(2) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (as amended) in that it is not substantially the same as the development originally approved.

 

10.   The proposal fails to satisfy the relevant considerations under Section 79C(1) (b),(c) and (e) Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 for natural and built environmental impacts, suitability of the site, and the public interest.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil   


Planning Committee                                                                                                 11 April 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR6/17

 

Subject:             Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Garcia, Stevenson and Andrews - 5 Edgecliffe Avenue, South Coogee (DA/419/2016)

Folder No:                   DA/419/2016

Submitted by:          Councillor Garcia, South Ward; Councillor Stevenson, Central Ward; Councillor Andrews, Central Ward      

 

That the resolution passed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on Tuesday 28 March 2017 and reading as follows:

 

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:

 

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

DA 0154 (Revision B)

Red Blue Architect and design

25/05/2016

DA 0200 (Revision C)

Red Blue Architect and design

26/09/2016

DA 0201 (Revision C)

Red Blue Architect and design

26/09/2016

DA 0202 (Revision C)

Red Blue Architect and design

26/09/2016

DA 0203 (Revision C)

Red Blue Architect and design

26/09/2016

DA 0204 (Revision C)

Red Blue Architect and design

26/09/2016

DA 0207 (Revision C)

Red Blue Architect and design

26/09/2016

DA 0210 (Revision C)

Red Blue Architect and design

25/05/2016

DA 0211 (Revision A)

Red Blue Architect and design

26/09/2016

DA 0221 (Revision A)

Red Blue Architect and design

27/09/2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

A241570

30 May 2016

 

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.

 

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.

Section 94A Development Contributions

4.       In accordance with Council’s Section 94A Development Contributions Plan effective from 21 April 2015, based on the development cost of $1,234,895 the following applicable monetary levy must be paid to Council: $12348.95.

 

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

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

IDC = ODC x CP2/CP1

 

Where:

IDC = the indexed development cost

ODC = the original development cost determined by the Council

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

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

 

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

 

Long Service Levy Payments

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

 

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

 

Security Deposit

6.       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:

 

·           $1000.00    -      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.

 

Design Alignment levels

7.       The design alignment level (the finished level of concrete, paving or the like) at the property boundary for driveways, access ramps and pathways or the like, shall be as follows:

 

·      Extended Western Driveway Entrance – RL 45.17 AHD

·      Pedestrian Entrance – RL 46.48 AHD

 

The design alignment levels at the property boundary as issued by Council must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate. The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

 

8.       The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $167.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

 

 

Sydney Water

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

·      Building plan approvals

·      Connection and disconnection approvals

·      Diagrams

·      Trade waste approvals

·      Pressure information

·      Water meter installations

·      Pressure boosting and pump approvals

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

New Street Tree

10.     The applicant must submit a payment of $107.25 (including GST) to cover the costs for Council to supply, plant and maintain 1 x 25 litre street tree selected from Council’s Street Tree Masterplan, on the Edgecliffe Avenue verge, an equal distance between the western edge of the new vehicle crossing and western site boundary at the completion of all works.

 

This fee must be paid into Tree Amenity Income at the Cashier on the Ground Floor of the Administrative Centre prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

 

The applicant must contact Council’s Landscape Development Officer on 9093-6613 (quoting the receipt number), and giving at least four working weeks’ notice (allow longer for public holidays or extended periods of rain) to arrange for planting.

 

After this, any further enquiries regarding scheduling/timing or completion of works are to be directed to Council’s North Area Tree Preservation & Maintenance Coordinator on 9093-6858.

 

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

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

 

Structural Adequacy

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

 

BASIX Requirements

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

 

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

 

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

 

Stormwater Drainage

14.     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

15.     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

16.     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

17.     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

18.     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

19.     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

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

 

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

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

     Details of hazardous materials (including asbestos)

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

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

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

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

     Other relevant details, measures and requirements to be implemented

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

     Date the demolition works will commence

 

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

 

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

 

Notes

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

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

 

Public Utilities

21.     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.

 

22.     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

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.

 

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

24.     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

25.     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

26.     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

27.     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

28.     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

29.     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

30.     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

31.     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.

 

32.     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.

 

33.     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

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

 

Tree Management

35.     Due to their small size and insignificance, no objections are raised to removing any vegetation throughout the site, including the dead tree in the rear yard, towards the southwest corner, so as to accommodate the works as shown, but is subject to full implementation of the approved landscaping.

 

Road / Asset Opening Permit

36.     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.

 

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

37.     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

38.     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.

 

Swimming Pool Safety

39.     Swimming pools are to be designed and installed in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and be provided with childproof fences and self-locking gates, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008.

 

The swimming pool is to be surrounded by a fence having a minimum height of 1.2m, that separates the pool from any residential building (as defined in the Swimming Pools Act 1992) that is situated on the premises and from any place (whether public or private) adjoining the premises; and that is designed, constructed and installed in accordance with Australian Standard AS 1926.1 – 2012 (Swimming Pool Safety Part 1 - Safety Barriers for Swimming Pools).

 

Gates to pool area shall be a maximum width of 1 metre, and be self-closing and latching; the gate is required to open outwards from the pool area and prevent a small child opening the gate or door when the gate or door is closed.

 

Temporary pool safety fencing is to be provided 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.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Note: This development consent does not approve the design and location of swimming pool fencing and other swimming pool safety barriers. Swimming pool fencing and other safety barriers are required to comply with the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and Swimming Pools Regulation 2008. Details of compliance are required to be incorporated into the plans and specifications for a Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

 

Spa Pool Safety

40.     Spa pools are to be designed and  installed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia and be provided with a child resistant barrier, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Act 1992 and the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008.

 

A ‘warning notice’ must be erected  in a prominent position in the immediate vicinity of the swimming pool, in accordance with the provisions of the Swimming Pools Regulation 2008, detailing pool safety requirements, resuscitation techniques and the importance of the supervision of children at all times.

 

Swimming Pool & Spa Pool Requirements

41.     Swimming pools (and spa pools) are to be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the following general requirements:

 

a)     Backwash of the pool filter and other discharge of water is to be drained to the sewer in accordance with the requirements of the Sydney Water Corporation; and

b)     All pool overflow water is to be drained away from the building and adjoining premises, so as not to result in a nuisance or damage to premises; and       

c)     Water recirculation and filtrations systems are required to comply with AS 1926.3 – 2010:  Swimming Pool Safety – Water Recirculation and Filtration Systems; and

d)     Pool plant and equipment is to be enclosed in a sound absorbing enclosure or installed within a building, to minimise noise emissions and possible nuisance to nearby residents.

 

Notification of Swimming Pools & Spa Pools

42.     The owner of the premises must ‘register’ the swimming pool [or spa pool] on the NSW Swimming Pool Register, in accordance with the Swimming Pools Amendment Act 2012.

 

The Swimming Pool Register is administered by the NSW Government, Department of Premier & Cabinet, Division of Local Government and registration on the Swimming Pool Register may be made on-line via their website www.swimmingpoolregister.nsw.gov.au.

 

Registration must be made before the issue of an Occupation Certificate for the pool.

 

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

43.     The applicant must meet the full cost for a Council approved contractor to:

 

a.       Reconstruct the concrete vehicular crossing opposite the vehicular entrance to the site to Council’s specifications and requirements.

 

b.       Construct new concrete steps and footpath between the vehicular crossing and the western pedestrian gate entrance to Council's specifications and requirements.

 

c.       Regrade and returf Council’s nature strip, as required by Council, along the site frontage to suit the new footpath/step levels on Council’s nature strip. The works are to be to council’s specifications and requirements. This may include the owner meeting the cost for lowering of public utility services.

 

Note: Should the proposed Council footpath/step works in front of the development site commence after completion of the adjoining developments (No. 3 Edgecliffe Ave) construction of the retaining wall on Council property then the owner/applicant is to meet all costs associated with removing the subject retaining wall.

 

44.     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.

 

45.     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.

 

Landscaping

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

 

47.     Suitable strategies shall be implemented to ensure that the landscaping is maintained in a healthy and vigorous state until maturity, for the life of the development.

 

48.     The nature-strip upon Council's footway shall be excavated to a depth of 150mm, backfilled with topsoil equivalent with 'Organic Garden Mix' as supplied by Australian Native Landscapes, and re-turfed with Kikuyu Turf or similar. Such works shall be installed prior to the issue of a final 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.

 

Use of premises

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

 

50.     The car spaces within the development are for the exclusive use of the occupants of the building. The car spaces must not be leased to any person/company that is not an occupant of the building. 

 

External Lighting

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

 

Plant & Equipment

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

 

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

 

Swimming/Spa Pools

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

 

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

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on any other day.

 

Air Conditioners

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

 

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

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

 

Rainwater Tanks

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

 

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

·       before 7.00am or after 8.00pm on weekdays.

 

ADVISORY NOTES

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

 

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

 

A7      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     Any external lighting to the premises should be designed and located so as to minimise light-spill beyond the property boundary or cause a public nuisance.

 

A12     Building owners and occupiers should consider implementing appropriate measures to prevent children from falling from high-level window openings and balconies (e.g. by installing window locking devices; installing heavy-duty screens to window openings; limiting the dimensions of any openings to 125mm; ensuring balustrades to balconies are at least 1m high and; locating fixtures, fittings and furniture away from high-level windows and balconies).

 

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

 

A13     Underground assets (e.g. pipes, cables etc.) may exist in the area that is subject to your application. In the interests of health and safety and in order to protect damage to third party assets please contact Dial before you dig at www.1100.com.au or telephone on 1100 before excavating or erecting structures (This is the law in NSW). If alterations are required to the configuration, size, form or design of the development upon contacting the Dial before You Dig service, an amendment to the development consent (or a new development application) may be necessary. Individuals owe asset owners a duty of care that must be observed when working in the vicinity of plant or assets. It is the individual’s responsibility to anticipate and request the nominal location of plant or assets on the relevant property via contacting the Dial before you dig service in advance of any construction or planning activities.

 

A14     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.

 

A15        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.

 

BE AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.

 

If the Rescission Motion is carried, it is intended to move the following motion:

 

“That application be approved in accordance with the conditions of consent, as resolved at the 28 March 2017 Council  meeting, subject to the following additional condition:

 

2(e)    The proposed pool cabana is to be below the height of the 1.2m fence line from 1 Edgecliff Avenue.