Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council 23 May 2017

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP21/17

Subject: 89-91 Bream Street, Coogee (DA/399/2016/A)

Folder No: DA/399/2016/A

Author: Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Section 96 modifications of the approved development for the partial enclosure of lobby areas, increase size of units 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, alterations to window openings to the eastern and western elevation and deletion of condition nos. 2(a) to 2(m)

Ward: North Ward

Applicant: CSA Architects Pty. Ltd.

Owner: AHR Group Pty.Ltd.

Summary

Recommendation: Refusal


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The section 96 modification application is referred to Council as the original development application was determined by Council at the Planning Committee meeting on the 11 October 2016.

Proposal

The subject section 96 modification involves the following works:

Ground floor level:

· Partial enclosure of ground floor lobby area and increase size of unit no. 2 by 44.52sqm with an additional TV room, bathroom and bedroom.

· Reconfiguration of storage area

· Deletion of plant and equipment area

First floor level:

· Partial enclosure of first floor lobby area and increase size of unit no. 4 by 59.19sqm with repositioning the bedroom and new study.

· Alterations to window openings along the eastern elevation of unit no. 4 and the western elevation of window no. 5.

· Internal reconfiguration of apartment layout of unit no. 5

Second floor:

· Partial enclosure of second floor lobby area and increase size of units 4 and 8 to 59.19 and 87.86sqm, respectively.

· Alterations and new window openings to the eastern and western elevations of units 4 and 8.

All levels:

· Lift area reduced in size at all levels and adjacent void area increased in size.

· The deletion of condition nos. 2(a) to 2(m) is in response to the amended plans received as part of the development application which aims to satisfy the conditions of consent.

Site

The subject site is known as 89-91 Bream Street, Coogee and formally described as Lot 1 DP 724924. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment with a frontage width of 14.735 metres, a depth of 43.625 metres and a site area of 642.8sqm.

Neighbouring the site to the east is an existing three storey dual occupancy development and further east is Dunningham Reserve and Coogee Beach. To the west are existing two and three storey residential flat buildings and dual occupancy developments, to the north (rear) is the rear setback of an existing dual occupancy development and to the south is Bream Street. The immediate locality is characterised by two and three storey residential flat buildings and dual occupancy developments.

The subject site is significantly elevated above the Council footpath level by approximately 2.44 metres with retaining walls located up to the front property boundary. Topographically, the site consists of a fall of approximately 5.59 metres from the northern (rear) to the southern (front) portion of the site.

The site is currently demolished and under construction.

Development History

The originally submitted section 96 application sought to increase the size of units 2 and 5 by reconfiguring the rear storage area at the ground floor level; increase the size of units 2, 4, 7 and 8 by the partial enclosure of the lobby areas; increase the size of the basement parking area to accommodate 12 parking spaces and waste area; alterations to the size of window openings and deletion of condition nos. 2(a) to 2(m).

Council raised the following concerns to the applicant.

As advised, the section 96 modification will contribute to a significant departure from the maximum permissible floor space ratios and as a result the exceedance to the gross floor area will further reduce the deep soil areas substantially below the minimum required under the RDCP2013. It is worthwhile noting that Council has specific objectives within Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios of the RLEP2012 which strictly relate to the environmental performance of buildings. The departure from the maximum FSR affects the permeability of the site and does not improve the environmental quality of the development.

Notwithstanding this, the RDCP2013 for landscaped open space and deep soil areas contains specific objectives and controls that deep soil areas must be suitably dimensioned to accommodate trees/ significant planting. It is unlikely that the residual deep soil area with a maximum depth of 2 metres will be able capable for growing substantial vegetation and therefore compliance with the RDCP2013 for deep soil is not achieved from the modified scheme.

The significance to the breach in FSR on its own merit can also not be ignored. The Section 96 modification proposes a building envelope that is significantly larger than what was originally granted development consent and would not have otherwise been approved in its current form had these modifications formed part of the original application. The departure is more than 20% over the maximum permissible requirements, is significantly larger than one that is anticipated within the RLEP2012 and is not compatible with the desired future character of the locality. For these reasons the exceedance of the FSR cannot be supported. The amenity of the additional bedrooms as a result of the additional FSR are also severely impacted, in particular bedroom no. 1 which is wholly below ground level (existing) and relies on a single south facing window opening.

Council also has issues with the number of TV/study rooms created by the additional floor space and reconfigured floor plan. A number of the study and TV rooms are suitably dimensioned for habitable uses and there are opportunities that such rooms can be converted into additional bedrooms. Should additional bedrooms be created there will be further implications on the parking demand generated by the proposed development.

The applicant responded to Council’s concerns by submitting amended plans on the 27 March 2017. The amended plans are as detailed within ‘The Proposal’ section of this report.

Section 96 Amendment

Substantially the same development:

The proposal involves modifications to the approved development including partial enclosure of the lobby areas; increase to the sizes of units 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 at the ground, first and second floor levels of the development; alterations and new window openings to the eastern and western elevations; reduction in size of lift cores and alterations to the western covered walkway. The proposed modifications will not result in a change to the nature of the original application and the works will result in an application that is substantially the same as that for which was consent was originally granted.

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:

· 163 Arden Street, Coogee

· 165 Arden Street, Coogee

Issue:

· The reinstatement of the timber screen and roof above of the third floor level which extends beyond the lift areas will continue to impact views of the neighbouring dwellings.

Comment: The application has been recommended for refusal. Condition no. 2 (b) will remain as part of the development consent and will not be modified as part of the Section 96 modification. The portion of the timber screening which extends beyond and the lift areas and roof above is considered to be part of the ‘associated structures’ of the pool area and will be removed as per the original development consent.

· The submitted plans do not include a western elevation which indicates compliance with condition no. 2(m) relating to the heights of window sill openings.

Comment: The application has been recommended for refusal. Condition no. 2(m) will remain part of the development consent.

· Requests that condition nos. 2(a) to 2(m) remain to reflect Council’s support of objections from the original development application.

Comment: The application has been recommended for refusal.

· Concerns that the pool area will be reintroduced as part of a subsequent application.

Comment: The swimming pool area and associated structures has been deleted as part of condition no. 2(b) of the development consent. The current section 96 modification does not seek to reinstate the swimming pool or associated structures.

· The objector requests that all plant and associated air-conditioning and equipment not be located on the rooftop of the dwelling.

Comment: The subject section 96 application does not seek to locate any plant or air-conditioning equipment within the roof of the building, nevertheless the application has been recommended for refusal.

State Environmental Planning Policy (Design Quality for Residential Development)

INTRODUCTION

A copy of the nine SEPP 65 Design Quality Principles is 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.

Your attention is drawn to the following;

· SEPP 65, including the 9 Design Quality Principles and the requirements for a Qualified Designer (a Registered Architect) to provided Design Verification Statements throughout the design, documentation and construction phases of the project.

· The Apartment Design Code (ADG), as published by Planning NSW (July 2015), which provides guidance on all the issues addressed below.

Both documents are available from the NSW Department of Planning.

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 is a Section 96 that has been referred to the Panel for comment. The Panel reviewed the proposal twice during the DA process in 2016.

The Panel is familiar with the site and the surrounding area.

The architect is CSA Architects.

The Section 96 application seeks to modify Condition 1 of the Council's consent, to delete Conditions 2a (requiring the deletion of the covered walkway on the western boundary) and 2m (north and west facing windows having 1.6m sills or obscured glazing) and Condition 9g (relating to the tree protection zone).

The proposed FSR is 1.1:1 whereas the control is 0.9:1. The applicant argues that this is due to infill of void spaces and corridors and is therefore acceptable.

The applicant also argues that the development as modified will provide a more balanced mix of apartments with 5 x 1/bed units and 4 x 2/bed units as compare to the approved 6 x 1/bed and 3 x 2/bed units.

The Panel has the following concerns about the Section 96 changes:

Car Park Plan

· The entry still has a structure of beams over it. The structural requirements of the beams should be confirmed so that the design and its impacts can be reviewed.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans to increase the amount of steel breams which overhang the western pedestrian access way. A draft letter has been prepared by Alba & Associates Structural Engineers to address the use of the beams as a measure of minimising construction risks to the neighbouring properties.

· The basement has extended substantially into the deep soil area of the rear yard and private open space. The approved car stackers are preferred by the Panel.

Comment: Noted. The applicant has submitted amended plans to increase the amount of deep soil landscaping at the rear. However, the plans are still deemed to be inadequate with respect to the key issues of this report.

· The entry should have some landscape. A small area of soil and suitable planting such as a wall-climbing vine adjacent to the lift entrance should be provided.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans to incorporate a wall-climbing vine adjacent to the lift entrance area.

· The fence on the west and its effect on tree protection zone of the neighbour's tree should be more clearly described.

Comment: The applicant has submitted an arboricultural impact assessment and amended plans to indicate the location of the trees on the neighbouring property.

· The green bin location in the entry is inappropriate. There may be room under the stair if the risers are rearranged. A batten gate should cover the bins.

Comment: The applicant has amended the plans to reposition the bin storage area on the southern side of the carpark level.

· The tree protection zones in the north yard need to be observed.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans to illustrate the location of the tree protection zones to the north of the subject site.

· Roofing is noted on AHR-08 as medium colour - the pebble ballast type should be nominated to ensure there is no confusion between this note and the roof plan.

Comment: No further roofing details are required given the application has been recommended for refusal.

Ground Floor Plan

· The extensive "concrete slab roof over lobby" should be deleted and the necessary structural items more clearly identified - sufficient weather protection is provided by the building over the entry door.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans to delete the ‘concrete roof slab over lobby’ and provided structural cross beams at intervals over the walkway.

· Window treatment for fire separation should be nominated for each window.

Comment: The applicant has indicated that they intend to provide a fire separation solution to each window. No details of the fire engineering solution have been provided at the section 96 stage.

· Unit 2 bedroom 1 and ensuite are substantially underground with only one window to the south. There does not seem to be risers for mechanical ventilation. The TV room has only swing doors for ventilation and the bathroom window may have privacy issues.

Comment: Noted. Council does not support the additional areas which will not receive a reasonable level of amenity to the occupants within these rooms.

· The width of the retaining walls to the western boundary and to the east are built and should be shown on the drawings in their real width as as-built drawings. Any real loss of width for the entry walkway (west) and the planting zone (east must be shown and compensated.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans with the structural details of the retaining walls along the western boundary.

First Floor Plan

· The Panel noted in previous reports that the lobbies were too big. It seemed likely that the area would be changed through the Section 96.

Comment: Noted. Council does not support the additional rooms as a result of the enclosure to the lobby areas. Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.

· Unit 5 is being proposed as a duplex unit. It is unclear what this means. Three bathrooms for a two bed unit seems excessive.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans to delete the duplex unit at the ground floor level to unit no. 5 including the rumpus room and bathroom at the ground floor level.

· The privacy and sun control louvres to the north are not adequately described for review. Are they operable? If so how is privacy for the northern neighbours retained? How are they constructed? On Section AA there appears to be a cavity that the screen sits in between the concrete balustrade and the windowsill - how is this maintained, drained, etc?

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended cross-section plans which detail the operations of the louvres along the northern elevation. The louvres are both retractable and motorised and incorporate a drip groove to minimise moisture under the sill.

Second Floor Plan

· As predicted the lobby is being reduced and floor space increased.

Comment: Noted. Council does not support the additional rooms as a result of the enclosure to the lobby areas. Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.

· The maintenance of the timber lobby screens that do not have easy access should be considered.

Comment: The applicant has not addressed the access to the timber screens and the amended plans simply seek to amend the materiality of the screen by replacing it from a timber to a timber-like aluminum.

· The details and materials of the privacy screens required by the conditions of consent need to be described.

Comment:

· The additional bedroom to Unit 7 should have a ceiling fan

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans to provide a ceiling fan within the bedroom of unit no. 7.

· Privacy and sun control louvres need to be described - are they fixed? If so at what angle? How do they work with window fire treatment?

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended cross-section plans which indicate that the louvres are both motorised and retractable. No details have been provided on its operation and how it works concurrently with the fire separation requirements to the window openings. The applicants response only details that a fire engineering solution is required.

Third Floor Plan

· notes as per Second Floor where relevant

Comment: Noted. See above.

· It appears that a future Section 96 could seek more of this lobby space as it only services the one unit. The proposed planning is awkward and views to the ocean blocked by the lobby. It would not seem unreasonable to want a south facing outdoor area due to the view amenity.

Comment: The current section 96 modification does not seek to utilize the lobby space as part of the residential unit no. 9.

· The design of the skylights to units 6 and 7 below are oversized and a small clerestory to the north would have better environmental performance.

Comment: The applicant maintains the size of the skylight windows as per the approved consent (DA/399/2016).

Sections

· A cross section is required and should be shown through units 5, 8 and, 9’s Bed 2 and show real retaining wall thicknesses.

Comment: A cross-section of bedroom no. 2 of units 5, 8 and 9 on the northern side of the building to detail the thickness of the retaining walls has not been submitted by the applicant. The thickness of the retaining walls is not detailed on the cross-section plans.

· The long section shows piles at the rear boundary under the note 3m deep soil. These are 10 m deep piles and should be shown as real not diagrammatic from the surface to the refusal point.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans to reduce the size of the basement parking area and the excavated portion will remain consistent with the previously approved development consent (DA/399/2016).

Other comments

· The common outdoor area would get limited winter sun due to retaining walls and fence heights.

Comment: The applicant has submitted amended plans to reinstate the communal open space areas located on the northern portion of the site as per the approved development consent (DA/399/2016).

· The windows to the car parking look very ordinary from the main entry - some design improvement needed.

Comment: The location of the west-facing high windows (WB.1 & WB.2) will remain consistent with the approved development consent (DA/399/2016). The window openings provide daylight into the basement parking area.

· The west windows behind the screens are difficult to understand - do they open? What is the area of glass?

Comment: The applicant has submitted an additional window schedule to provide details of the window openings including the area of the glass.

· The added height of the northern roof is not entirely necessary and if lowered would there be more amenity for neighbours? Photovoltaics have not been included however these would be preferable to the added roof height. The height of the small sliver of glass shown to the south looks to be challenged, particularly when a sill, roof falls, insulation and ballast are detailed.

Comment: The proposal does not seek to increase the height of the northern portion of the roof. The original approval granted development consent for the northern portion of the roof to have an RL30.05 and the section 96 modification will be consistent with the previous approval.

· The photomontage provided shows extensive planting on the roof however this is no longer the case.

Comment: The applicant has submitted an amended photomontage which deletes the planting to the rooftop area.

· An updated Landscape plan should be submitted for review.

Comment: The applicant has not submitted an amended landscape plan with respect to the subject Section 96 modification.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel would support the additional floor space if other issues raised in this report were improved and satisfactorily resolved in consultation with the Council. The insufficient inclusion and/or description of structural sizes for retaining walls, footings, concrete beams and the like may cause substantial changes at CC or later stages. The Panel recommends this be avoided and the structural design brought forward. The Panel would be happy to review this proposal again if the Council requires.

Comment: Noted. The Design Review Panel do not support the subject section 96 modification given the inadequate structural details provided with the subject application. Further, the panel has reiterated Council’s concerns that the alterations to unit no. 1 by increasing the apartment’s footprint well below the ground level (existing) will compromise the level of amenity received by the occupants of the building as detailed within the key issues section of this report. Council does not require the panel to review the application again and the proposal has been recommended for refusal in considering the non-compliances to the Apartment Design Guide; the zoning and floor space ratio objectives of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and the vehicular parking rate of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

Key Issues

State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004

The proposed modifications involve increasing the size of a number of windows along the eastern and western elevations of the building at the ground, first and second floor levels of the residential flat development and new bathroom areas. An amended BASIX certificate is required to reflect the changes to the window and door openings in addition to the new wet areas which have not been included as part of the Section 96 documentation.

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development) “SEPP65”

· Part 4B: Natural Ventilation

The Section 96 modification includes the increase in size of unit no. 2 to include a new TV room. The TV room includes an openable ground floor window above the north-facing door openings which does not comply with the minimum natural ventilation requirements of the ADG. A minimum area of an unobstructed window opening must be equal to at least 5% of the floor area served. The TV room has an area of approximately 10.2 metres and requires a window opening area of 0.508sqm. In accordance with the submitted section plans, the typical doors have a height of 2.4 metres and subsequently the window above the length of the door opening will have dimensions of 0.7m x 0.3m with an area of 0.21sqm. The non-compliance is unacceptable given the reduced window size will not achieve adequate natural ventilation does not assist in promoting thermal comfort levels for the occupants. The nominal window size will ensure the apartment will rely on mechanical ventilation and does not promote passive environmental and energy efficient design.

· Part 4D: Apartment Size and Layout

The design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide prescribe a minimum apartment size of 70sqm and 90sqm for two and three bedroom apartments, respectively and additional bathrooms above one requires a further 5sqm. The Section 96 modifications involves increasing the size of the apartment nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7 and proposes to create a number of additional spaces within each apartment including TV room at Unit no. 2 and study to Unit nos. 4, 5 and 7 all of which have increased window sized openings. Council does not support the additional spaces in that the modification creates quasi-bedroom uses whereby the rooms are suitably sized and dimensioned to be accommodated for bedroom uses. The rooms contain minimum dimension widths of approximately 3 metres and demonstrate near-compliance with the minimum bedroom requirements of the Apartment Design Guide. It is likely that these rooms will be actively used for bedroom uses and will contribute to substantial variations from the minimum apartment size requirements for two bedroom apartments. Should the additional spaces be reasonably considered as bedrooms, apartment nos. 4 and 7 will be more than 10sqm below the minimum apartment size requirements for two bedrooms and apartment no. 8 approximately 3sqm below the minimum apartment size for three bedroom apartments. The variation from the design criteria of the ADG is unacceptable given the substandard apartment size no longer provides a high standard of amenity to the occupants or enhance the usability and functionality of the space as a result of the variation from the floor space provisions. The apartment does not achieve appropriate amenity as indicated with the minimum internal area requirements for apartments from the design criteria of the Apartment Design Guide.

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 “RLEP2012”

The proposal is inconsistent with the general aims and objectives of the RLEP2012. The following clauses of the LEP2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

· R3: Medium Density Residential Zone

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

To protect the amenity of residents

Assessment:

The proposed development does not protect the amenity, in particular to the occupants in the building. As detailed in Part 4D: Apartment Size and Layout of the Apartment Design Guide the additional floor areas to apartment nos. 2, 4, 5 and 7 contribute to quasi-bedroom spaces being created within each apartment all of which contain dimensions that are suitable to be accommodated as bedroom spaces. The use of the TV and study rooms as bedrooms will result in an apartment layout that is well below the minimum apartment size requirements by up to 10sqm. Significant non-compliance to the minimum apartment size requirements does not promote the objectives in the zone given the proposal does not facilitate appropriately proportioned or functional spatial arrangement of apartments that can offer a high standard of living amenity. In addition to this, the proposed TV room uses at the ground floor level does not achieve a reasonable level of amenity in receiving adequate solar access and natural ventilation. The TV room is not expected to receive any direct solar access and limited natural ventilation due to the nominal window opening size above the north-facing doors. It is clear that the proposed modifications do not provide a reasonable level of amenity to the occupants and is inconsistent with the relevant objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone.

· Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios

The proposed Section 96 modification involves a variation to the maximum permissible gross floor area for the site of 0.9:1, as prescribed under the floor space ratio map of the RLEP2012. The original development application granted consent with a gross floor area of 559sqm with an FSR of 0.87:1 and the modification application seeks to increase the gross floor area to 635.7sqm (an increase of 76.7sqm) with an FSR of 0.989:1 (as detailed by correspondence with the applicant). The proposal will result in an exceedance to the maximum permissible FSR by 9% and subsequently, compliance with the objectives of Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratios is required.

The relevant objectives for floor space ratios are as follows:

To ensure that buildings are well articulated and respond to environmental and energy needs.

Assessment:

The non-compliance to the FSR does not respond to the environmental and energy needs of the building. The breach to the floor area at the ground floor level of unit no. 2 proposes an additional TV room, bathroom and bedroom on the eastern side of the building. The additional spaces are not expected to enjoy an appropriate level of amenity given the TV room relies upon a diminutive window opening above the north-facing doors. The TV room will neither receive adequate direct solar access or natural ventilation given the neighbouring building and approved development will result in the living room area receiving nil solar access and the window opening will not comply with a minimum area of 5% of the floor area of the TV room to allow for appropriate natural ventilation as required under the ADG. Furthermore, the bedroom no. 1 east facing ground floor bedroom window is unlikely to receive any direct solar access given it will be substantially below ground level (existing) in that the top of window sill (RL19.5) will be sit below the boundary fence line between 89-91 and 93 Bream Street at RL21.68. The lack of available solar access will ensure the development will rely upon artificial lighting and heating for its day-to-day use. Subsequently, the exceedance to the Floor Space Ratio does not positively respond to the environmental or energy needs of the building. The modifications do not contribute to a better planning outcome and the additional floor area is at the expense of the occupants amenity within the building. The proposal is inconsistent with the above objective and the breach to the floor space ratio is not supported.

Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 “RDCP2013”

· B7: Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access

The proposed increase in the number of potential bedroom uses will result in the following parking demand:

Unit no.	Potential bedroom uses:	Parking required:
1	1	1
2	3	1.5
3	1	1
4	2	1.2
5	2	1.2
6	1	1
7	2	1.2
8	3	1.5
9	2	1.2
Visitor spaces	1 per 4 units	2.25 spaces
TOTAL		13.05 spaces (say 13 spaces)
No. of parking spaces proposed:		12 spaces

The increase in the number of bedrooms will generate a greater parking demand than the originally approved development with a shortfall of one parking space. The non-compliance to the parking demand is not supported given the shortfall is a direct result of the exceedance above the maximum floor space ratio provisions in creating a number of quasi-bedroom uses within apartment nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. It is clear that a development that demonstrates full compliance with the floor space ratio development standards as per the originally approved development consent (DA/399/2016) would be more aligned and consistent with the vehicular parking rate requirements of the RDCP2013. The additional floor area which breaches the maximum provisions has implications to the parking demand and is inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 3.2 of the RDCP2013 in that the development does not provide an appropriate level of off-street vehicle parking.

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 section 96 modification application has been assessed against the requirements of the relevant planning guidelines of the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development, council policies including the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Development Control Plan 2013 as well as Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979. The exceedance to the maximum permissible floor space ratios is not supported given the development will contribute to adverse amenity impacts in particular with the non-compliances to the minimum apartment size and natural ventilation requirements of the Apartment Design Guide. Notwithstanding this, the pseudo-bedroom uses to the apartment nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 will increase the off-street parking demand and does not comply with the vehicular parking rates of the RDCP2013. The additional floor area included as part of the modification application does not result in a better planning outcome to justify the contravention to the floor space ratio standard and would warrant Council support. Consequently, the modification application has been recommended for refusal.

Recommendation

That Council, as the consent authority, refuses development consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/399/2016/A at No. 89-91 Bream Street, Coogee for modification of the approved development by the partial enclosure of lobby areas, increase size of units 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8, alterations to window openings to the eastern and western elevation and deletion of condition nos. 2(a) to 2(m), for the following reasons:

1. The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria or objectives for Natural Ventilation specified in Part 4B of the Apartment Design Guide as per the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality of Residential Apartment Development.

2. The proposal does not satisfy the design criteria or objectives for Apartment Size and Layout specified in Part 4D Apartment Size and Layout of the Apartment Design Guide as per the State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 – Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development.

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

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

5. The proposal does not satisfy the controls or objectives for vehicular parking rates specified in Clause 3.2 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

Attachment/s:

Nil

Ordinary Council 23 May 2017

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP22/17

Subject: 90-92 Marine Parade, Maroubra (DA/816/2016)

Folder No: DA/816/2016

Author: Matthew Choi, Senior Environmental Planning Officer

Proposal: Demolition of the existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings, basement car parking for 8 vehicles with access from The Corso, swimming pool at ground level and associated works (variation to height control)

Ward: Central Ward

Applicant: MKD Architects

Owner: Mr. Peter Finucane & Mrs. Robyn Gaye Finucane

Summary

Recommendation: Approval


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The subject application has been referred to Council for determination at the request of Councillors Andrews, Seng, Shurey and Stavrinos.

Proposal

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings, basement car parking for 8 vehicles with access from The Corso, swimming pool at ground level and associated works.

Note: The applicant has lodged a Class 1 appeal under the Land and Environment Court Act 1979 with respect to the development application. Subsequently, the current application must be determined at the Ordinary Council Meeting in order to provide Council’s solicitors with instructions in relation to the appeal.

Site

The subject site is legally described as Lot 30 DP 6127 and is known as no. 90-92 Marine Parade, Maroubra. The site is a rectangular shaped allotment and located on the intersection of Marine Parade and The Corso. The site has a frontage width of 13.41 metres along Marine Parade and a secondary street frontage of 36.575 metres along The Corso with a total site area of 490.5sqm.

Neighbouring the site to the north-east is an existing three storey residential flat building, to the north-west is an existing two storey dwelling house fronting Torrington Road and to the south-east and south-west is the road reserve to Marine Parade and The Corso, respectively. The immediate locality is characterised by a mixture of low and medium density residential developments which varies between single to four storeys in scale.

The topography of the site consists of a minor fall of approximately 2 metres from the rear of the subject site to the street frontage along Marine Parade and a fall of approximately 700mm from the southern to the northern sides of the subject site.

The subject site is currently occupied by an existing single storey commercial premise with semi-detached dwelling at the rear.

Clause 4.6: Variations to a Development Standard

Height of Buildings

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

Proposed height of building	12.82 metres
Maximum height of building	12 metres
Height exceeding LEP control	820mm (6.8%)

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

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

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

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

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Consistency with the objectives of the Height of Buildings standard in the LEP objectives:

2. The objectives of this clause are as follows:

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

Assessment:

The proposed development will result in a minor breach to the height of building development standard and the area of non-compliance varies between 420mm to 820mm comprising the roof above the third floor level balcony, the roof parapet and lift overrun areas. The variation to the maximum height of buildings development standards is relatively minor and will not result in any unreasonable level of visual bulk and is generally compatible in scale with the neighbouring buildings along Marine Parade. The south-western neighbours at no. 98 and 100 Marine Parade are four storeys in scale with the former having an RL34.5. The immediately adjoining neighbours at nos. 88 and 94 Marine Parade also have an RL29.07 and RL29.8, respectively. The proposed residential flat building has an RL30.97 as measured from the top of the roof parapet and will generally remain comparable in height and does not significantly extend well above the building height plane and will fit comfortably between the neighbouring buildings. The minor height breach of 570mm as measured from the roof parapet is commensurate to the existing built form along Marine Parade with respect to the three and four storey developments. Further, the exceedance of the lift overrun by 820mm will not be visible from the streetscape given it is substantially setback from the front property boundary by approximately 11.4 metres and will not be appreciated from Marine Parade. In considering the scale of the proposed development and neighbouring buildings, the development is considered to be generally consistent with the desired future character of the locality.

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

Assessment:

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

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

Assessment:

· The proposed scheme is not expected to result in any adverse visual privacy impacts to the immediate neighbouring dwellings. The north-eastern facing window openings and balconies at the ground, first, second and third floor level windows will not result in any direct overlooking into the habitable room windows or private open spaces of the adjoining buildings. For instance, the blade wall along the north-eastern edge of the east facing balconies is adequate in maintaining a visual balance between offering a reasonable level of privacy and preserving the sweeping water views; the kitchen windows to the eastern corner will only offer oblique overlooking into the enclosed balcony areas of the north-eastern neighbour; the adjoining kitchen window will be directly oriented to a blank wall to the north-east and the study window exceeds the minimum separation requirements of Part 3F for Visual Privacy. Similarly, the north-west facing balconies are also compliant with the minimum separation requirements for visual privacy as prescribed within the ADG and inclusive of a substantial setback from the rear (western boundary) by 12 metres. Finally, the south-west facing balconies are substantially setback to the habitable room windows of no. 94 Marine Parade by more than 22 metres given the significant separation by the existing roadway of The Corso.

· The extent of the solar access impacts to the neighbouring buildings are acceptable and will continue to demonstrate compliance with Part 3B: Orientation. The residential apartment at no. 94 Marine Parade will continue to receive more than the required two hours of direct solar access during the late morning to afternoon period and the north-facing windows of the single dwelling at no. 67 The Corso will be unaffected by shadowing from the proposed development. In considering the above, the proposal is acceptable in achieving adequate solar access as per the requirements of the Apartment Design Guide and local planning controls of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

· The additional building height and non-compliance to the external wall height does not contribute to adverse view loss impacts to the neighbouring buildings (refer to the key issues section for further details). The proposal will generally comply with the planning principles of Tenacity Consulting v. Warringah Council

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

Objectives of zone:

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

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

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

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

· To protect the amenity of residents.

· To encourage housing affordability.

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

Assessment:

The demolition of the existing single storey commercial premises and associated dwelling to the rear and construction of a new four storey residential flat building will be in keeping with the zoning objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposed scheme will not contribute to any adverse visual bulk and the additional height will not be out of scale with the existing buildings along Marine Parade. The marginal non-compliance with the height of buildings development standard by 570mm (as measured from the roof parapet) will remain relatively consistent with the form and massing of the neighbouring building blocks which consist of three to four storey residential flat developments and are similar in scale. Further, the area of non-compliance as a result of the lift overrun which exceeds the 12 metre height of building plane will generally be restricted centrally within the site and will not be visible from key viewing vistas along Marine Parade or The Corso given its substantial setbacks from the south-eastern and south-western property boundaries. Overall, the proposed building envelope does not breach the height of building development standards to an extent which will be perceivable from the streetscape or compromise the street edge.

3. Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

Assessment:

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

4. The variation for a better planning outcome

Assessment:

The design scheme proposes a four storey scale and will comfortably fit within the subject allotment. The additional building height to a maximum of 820mm does not contribute to any unreasonable visual bulk and scale impacts from the existing streetscape or the neighbouring buildings. The variation to the height of buildings development standard will not give rise to any unreasonable level of visual privacy, overshadowing and view loss impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The variation from the development standards will continue to provide a better planning outcome.

5. There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

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

· The area of non-compliance to the height of buildings development standard is considered negligible given the degree of non-compliance is limited to the south-eastern (front) portion of the site by 420mm as measured from the top of the roof parapet and 570mm from the top of the roof parapet. The additional building height is insignificant and will not compromise the appearance of the of the existing streetscape setting. The height of the proposed building will generally remain compatible in size and scale with the neighbouring buildings.

· The amended scheme will generally comply with a suite of building envelope controls including deep soil, landscaped open space, side and rear setbacks, floor space ratios, building depth and private open spaces. The non-compliance to the front setback to the secondary street frontage adjacent to The Corso is acceptable given adequate building separation is provided which will relieve the visual bulk and scale of the street and its general compliance with the side setback control to the south-western boundary will ensure continuity to the rhythm of street setbacks along Marine Parade. Further, the breach to the external wall is also acceptable in that the built form will generally remain compatible with other four storey residential flat developments within the immediate streetscape. The proposal has been sensitively and skillfully designed to ensure it demonstrates compliance with the planning controls and is aligned with Council’s expectations in achieving a high quality of urban design.

· The proposal does not give rise to any adverse environmental amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The solar access and overshadowing will be acceptable given the neighbouring dwellings will continue to receive more than the required two hours of direct solar access between the hours of 9am – 3pm; the proposal does not given rise to any significant overlooking impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and the view loss is acceptable when assessed against the planning principles of Tenacity Consulting v. Warringah Council [2004] NSWLEC 140 and the view sharing controls of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Submissions

· 1/88 Marine Parade, Maroubra

· 2/88 Marine Parade, Maroubra

· 3/88 Marine Parade, Maroubra

· 6/98 Marine Parade, Maroubra

· 32 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

· 36 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

· 1 The Corso, Maroubra

· 53 The Corso, Maroubra

· 67 The Corso, Maroubra

· 5/55 The Corso, Maroubra

· 63 The Corso, Maroubra

· 77 Torrington Road, Maroubra

· 79 Torrington Road, Maroubra

Notwithstanding the submissions raised above, amended plans were received on the 24 April 2017 which includes the following modifications:

· Delete the rooftop terrace and associated hatch, planter boxes, balustrading and privacy screen structures.

· Lower the height of the roof parapet by 250mm.

· Increase the area of soft landscaping adjacent the north-western and north-eastern boundaries.

· New arbour over the driveway ramp to soften the impact of the vehicular ramp.

· Alter the materials and finishes of the third floor level to ensure consistency with the residential levels below.

· Reduce the size of the ground floor entry awning.

· Modify the driveway requirements to address concerns raised by Council’s development engineering unit.

In accordance with Clause 3.5.1: Amended Applications as per Part A3 of the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 specifies that if the amendments will have a lesser or the same effect as the original application then re-notification is not required and submissions on the original application will be considered in the assessment. The majority of the works constitutes a reduction in the scope of building works and subsequently re-notification to these works is not required. The new arbour over the driveway ramp does not warrant re-notification to the adjoining neighbours given the works will not contribute to any adverse impacts in particular with respect to the north-western neighbour at no. 83 Torrington Road. The arbour will remain of a lower height then the adjoining garage structure and will continue to respect the topography of the site with a significant fall from the north-west to the south-east of the site. Inclusion of the arbour was recommended by Council’s design review panel and its open and lightweight nature will not contribute to excessive visual bulk or detract from the appearance of the streetscape setting. Consequently, the application is not required to be re-notified. The submissions provided as part of the original set of plans will be considered in the assessment.

*Issue*	*Comment*
The proposal will exceed the maximum height of buildings of the RLEP2012	Refer to Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards within this report for further details.
The four storey scale of the building will not be compatible with the existing streetscape.	The existing streetscape along Marine Parade consists of a mixture of low and medium density residential development including dwelling houses and residential flat buildings between single and four storeys in height. The four storey scale of the development has been incorporated as part of the 12 metre height of buildings development standard.
The proposal will result in adverse visual privacy impacts.	Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.
The communal pedestrian footpath and swimming pool area at the ground floor level will contribute to adverse noise impacts. The central core area including stairs and lifts will contribute to adverse noise impacts.	The additional noise impacts are considered to be ancillary to a residential flat building which is permissible with consent in the R3: Medium Density Residential zone. Notwithstanding this, all central core areas are compliant with the required side setbacks of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zone.
The proposal may be let for short term holiday accommodation.	The proposed development does not seek consent for serviced apartments and is for a residential flat building.
The roof top terrace will result in adverse visual privacy and perceivable bulk and scale impacts.	Noted. The applicant has submitted amended plans and removed the rooftop terrace.
The proposal does not comply with the minimum separation requirements of objective 3F as per the ADG.	Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.
The proposal does not provide any communal open space.	Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.
The proposal will contribute to increased vehicular traffic.	The proposal will provide a surplus of one parking space at the basement level and is not expected to compromise the existing traffic demand.
The proposal will result in adverse overshadowing impacts.	Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.
The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site.	The applicant has submitted Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards and the applicant has provided reasonable grounds to vary the standard and the applicant’s written request has provided sufficient environmental planning grounds to justify the contravening the development standards for height of buildings. The size and scale of the development is acceptable given the building will remain compatible with the building height plane between the two neighbouring premises and will not contribute to any detracting visual bulk and scale impacts. It will otherwise remain in keeping with the appearance of the existing streetscape. Furthermore, the proposal will also continue to comply with a suite of building envelope controls including deep soil, landscaped open space, front, side and rear setbacks, floor space ratio and building depth which will be consistent with the collective nature of the building envelope controls.
The proposal will result in adverse view loss impacts	Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.
No height poles have been erected to demonstrate the height of the proposed building.	Height poles were installed on the 17 January 2017 to reflect the proposed building heights.
The proposal does not comply with the external wall height requirements of the RDCP2013.	Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.
The rear setback of the building should incorporate permeable landscaping.	The applicant has submitted amended plans to increase the size of the soft landscaping area at the rear of the subject site. The soft landscaped area is adequate in size and suitably dimensioned to minimise stormwater run-off and will improve the environmental performance of the site. Notwithstanding this, the development will demonstrate full compliance with the soft landscaping requirements within both the ADG and the RDCP2013.
The submitted statement of environmental effects does not detail the variations to the FSR.	Council has carried out calculations of the gross floor area and the proposed development will comply with the maximum floor space ratio of 0.9:1.
The submitted statement of environmental effects does not detail the view loss impacts to the south-western affected neighbours.	Refer to the key issues section of this report for further details.
The external wall along the south-western side of the building does not comply with the 3 metre front setback requirement of the RDCP2013.	Refer to key issues section of this report for further details.
The height of building and external wall has not been calculated correctly.	The building height and external wall height has been measured in accordance with the RLEP2012 and RDCP2013, respectively.
The ceiling heights do not indicate whether it achieves a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 2.7 metres as per the ADG.	The submitted plans are to scale and measure a 2.7 metre floor-to-ceiling height.

Key Issues

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 65 (Design Quality for Residential Apartment Development)

· Part 3D: Communal and Public Open Space

The Apartment Design Guide requires a minimum of 25% of the site area be provided as communal open space. Other relevant provisions within the RDCP2013 require that communal open space be of a sufficient contiguous area, and not divided up for allocation to individual units. The proposed development does not provide any communal open space as part of the site strategy and contravenes the controls within both the Apartment Design Guide and the RDCP2013. However, the Apartment Design Guidelines acknowledges that developments may not be able to accommodate communal open space on small lots provided the following is met:

o Provide communal open spaces elsewhere such as a landscaped roof top terrace or a common room.

o Provide larger balconies or increased private open space for apartments.

o Demonstrate good proximity to public open space and facilities and/or provide contributions to public open space.

In considering the allotment size, the corner positioning, the nominal site width and the small number of apartments proposed, there are several indicators which suggest that the site would benefit more from ensuring that adequate private open spaces areas are provided in accommodating the recreational needs of the occupants. The development provides oversized areas of private open space to each apartment with approximately 160sqm at the ground floor level and 40sqm at the first, second and third floor level – more than the required 12sqm under the ADG; the site is located in close proximity to significant areas of public open space including the Maroubra foreshore on the opposite side of Marine Parade and finally, opportunities to provide communal open space located on the roof top have been deleted in order to ensure the development remains more aligned with the maximum height of buildings and will minimise the visual and acoustic privacy impacts to the neighbouring developments. Subsequently, the typical site constraints and the facilitation of greater private open space to each individual unit, on balance, would better serve the needs of the residents than a subservient communal area.

· Part 3F: Visual Privacy

In order to achieve appropriate levels of visual privacy, the ADG requires a minimum building separation of 6 metres from habitable rooms to the side boundaries and 3 metres from non-habitable rooms for buildings up to 4 storeys in height. The current proposal includes a side setback of 2 metres at the north-eastern and south-eastern boundaries. The proposal does not comply with the design criteria and represents a significant departure from the ADG requirements.

However, it is impractical to provide a compliant building separation in accordance with Part 3F-1: Visual Privacy given a 6 metre side setback physically constrains the development potential on the site and significantly impacts the area that the site can be reasonably developed on. Therefore, a greater emphasis should be placed on the side setback controls as prescribed within the RDCP2013 in reasonably determining the appropriate building setback from the neighbouring dwellings as well as promote building envelopes which respond to the particulars of the local site context. Further, any visual privacy impacts should conform with the objectives and design guidance requirements of the ADG by adopting visual privacy measures to maintain a reasonable level of amenity to the occupants and neighbouring premises.

In terms of privacy impacts, the proposed development is not expected to result in any adverse visual privacy impacts to the neighbouring dwellings. The south-east facing front balconies adjacent to the enclosed balcony area of the north-eastern neighbour is not deemed to be significant to warrant additional privacy measures. Provisions for privacy screening along the north-eastern edge of the upper level balconies does not attribute to a desirable planning outcome given the site enjoys sweeping water views of the Maroubra foreshore and the inclusion of any new privacy screening will not adopt a balanced approach between view sharing and privacy protection. In considering that the enclosed balconies are south-east facing and front the existing streetscape it is difficult to qualitatively identify them as areas of ‘private open space’. When taking this into consideration it would be unreasonable to ensure total privacy protection is warranted. A blade wall is also proposed to minimise direct overlooking impacts from the living room areas to the south-facing balcony enclosed window areas.

With respect to the window openings the north-east kitchen windows along the eastern corner of the site will contribute only to oblique overlooking impacts to the south-west facing enclosed balcony window of the north-eastern neighbour; the adjacent north-east kitchen window is immediately opposite a blank wall and the north-east facing study window and north-west facing balcony are significantly setback from the adjoining neighbours and will comply with the separation requirements of the ADG. Potential overlooking impacts from the roof top terrace have also been ameliorated given they have been deleted from the plans. In considering the above, the proposal is acceptable in complying with Part 3F: Visual Privacy.

· Part 4A: Solar and Daylight Access

The Apartment Design Guide prescribes that the neighbouring dwellings be required to receive a minimum of two hours of solar access between the hours of 9am – 3pm, 21 June. The south-western neighbours in particular nos. 94 Marine Parade and dwellings on the opposite side of The Corso will receive uninterrupted solar access to the north-facing windows between the hours of 10am – 3pm and more than the required two hours of direct solar access.

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

· Clause 4.4: Floor Space Ratio

The residential units at the ground, first, second and third floor levels have a gross floor area of 438sqm and provides for 8 car spaces at the basement parking level. The 4 x 3 bedroom residential unit generates a demand for 6 parking spaces + 1 visitor space with a total demand for 7 parking spaces. In accordance with the definition of ‘gross floor area’ car parking is excluded ‘to meet the requirements of the consent authority’ and therefore 7 parking spaces are excluded from the gross floor area calculations. Subsequently, the surplus of one parking space will contribute to the gross floor area of the building and result in a total gross floor area of 450.96sqm with a Floor Space Ratio of 0.919:1 and exceed the maximum floor space ratio. A Clause 4.6: Exceptions to Development Standards has not been issued with respect to the variation of the maximum permissible floor space ratio controls. To ensure the floor area remains fully compliant, a condition of consent has been included that a car space 05 (immediately adjacent to the lift area) be deleted from the plans to ensure the proposal demonstrates full compliance with the floor space ratio provisions.

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

· Clause 3.4: Setbacks

The front setback controls specifies that the front setback on the primary and secondary street frontages must be consistent with the prevailing setback line along the street. In addition to this, the setback must be no less than 3 metres in all circumstances to allow for suitable landscaped areas to be provided to the building entries. The south-west facing upper level balcony areas are setback 2 metres from the secondary street frontage along The Corso and do not comply with the minimum setback controls of the RDCP2013, a shortfall of 1 metre. However, in considering the merits of the proposal, the departure from the minimum front setback requirements are understated and will generally be consistent with the objectives for setbacks under the RDCP2013.

The Council controls prescribes that in all circumstances a minimum front setback of 3 metres is required to allow for suitable landscaped areas to building entries. When measured from the ground floor (existing) the south-western external wall is setback 3 metres from the property boundary with soft landscaping provided along the entirety of the south-western boundary (aside from the driveway access handle) to accommodate the growth of soft landscaped areas and open space. In addition to this, it is important to recognise that the primary building entrance is along the north-eastern boundary and the south-western side will be used largely as a secondary street access for the occupants with street access from the basement parking area. Strictly speaking, the intent of the 3 metre setback control is to provide appropriate depth and landscape elements to ensure that the building mass is reduced and does not impact the streetscape setting.

The proposed building envelope is adequate in complying with the intention of the front setback control by providing permeable landscaping elements and a 3 metre building separation from the secondary street frontage. Notwithstanding this, the allotment configuration to the dwellings fronting Torrington Road also consist of a number of ancillary structures at the rear comprising single and two storey garage structures set up to the south-western property boundary adjacent to The Corso. The proposed development will provide an increased setback in comparison to the adjoining structures and will minimise the perceivable visual bulk from the street. Finally, the development is not expected to have any adverse amenity impacts with respect to overshadowing, visual privacy or view loss impacts to the neighbouring south-western properties. The non-compliance to the Council controls is acceptable and will comply with the objectives of the RDCP2013.

· Clause 4.4: External Wall Height

Council controls prescribe a minimum external wall height of 10.5 metres if a site has a maximum permissible building height of 12 metres. Typically, the difference the wall height and the maximum building height are to allow for a roof element. The proposal consists of an external wall height of 12.57 metres (as measured from the top of the roof parapet) and exceeds the maximum by 570mm. The liftoverrun extends beyond the roof parapet by an additional 250mm to a total of 820mm above the maximum building height. The non-compliance to the Council’s controls requires a merit assessment to comply with the objectives of the RDCP2013 with respect to the external wall height provisions. The objectives are as follows:

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

The test of compatibility within the existing streetscape is made evident within Project Venture Developments Pty. Ltd. v Pittwater Council. The planning principle for compatibility of the urban environment involves a two stages assessment:

Are the proposal’s physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable? The physical impacts include constraints on the development potential of surrounding sites.

The physical amenity impacts to neighbouring developments can be assessed with relative objectivity in considering potential planning impacts including visual and acoustic privacy, solar and access and overshadowing, view loss and bulk and scale – all of which constrain ‘development potential’. The proposed development does not result in any significant overshadowing impacts to the adjoining neighbour in which the south-western neighbours all receive more than the required two hours of solar access to the north facing windows; visual privacy is largely mitigated with significant separation to the south-west given the length of the existing roadway along The Corso and the north-east facing window openings will not result in any direct overlooking into the habitable room windows of the neighbouring dwellings; view loss impacts are generally reasonable (as detailed within the key issues section of this report) and overall the proposal does not constrain the development potential given it remains compliant with the floor space provisions, landscaping, soft landscaping and setback controls/objectives.

Is the proposal’s appearance in harmony with the buildings around it and the character of the street?

The planning principles outline that the most important contributing factor to urban character and the surrounding urban spaces is the relationship between building envelope elements including building height, setbacks and landscaping.

With respect to the proposed building height, the development does not contribute to any excessive visual bulk and scale impacts to the existing streetscape setting. The building envelope is generally compatible and does not visually appear out of character with the existing streetscape. Neighbouring buildings in particular nos. 98 and 100 Marine Parade are of a similar scale contributing to a four storey scale with the former comprising of an RL34.5 which extends substantially higher than the proposed development. Further, north-east along Marine Parade, nos. 54-56 and 60-62 Marine Parade are also similar with four storeys in scale with the former having a building height at approximately RL34.00. Further, nos. 54-56 and 60-62 Marine Parade consist of low pitching roof elements which are contributory elements to the streetscape character and present a variety of low profile and roof pitching elements. The varying heights of the buildings and type of buildings comprising of a mixture of both low and medium density residential developments between single and four storeys in scale reflects a streetscape that does not contain a prevailing building height pattern and strict compatibility to the adjoining building heights is unreasonable.

The front and side setbacks are also contributory to the built form character and compatibility of the streetscape. The residential flat building contains a three metre setback from the primary street frontage along Marine Parade which is an increased setback of the immediately adjoining dwellings with nos. 88 and 94 Marine Parade set 2.2 metres and nil from the Marine Parade street frontage, respectively. The setback is fully compliant with the setback controls of the RDCP2013 which require a 3 metre setback as per the RDCP2013. Similarly, the side setback at 2 metres from the north-eastern neighbours is also compliant with the numerical controls and the minor variation from the south-western boundary at 2 metres will generally be of a similar alignment to the ancillary structures of the rear adjoining dwellings along The Corso as well as being consistent with the objectives of the setback controls. The proposed side setback is also generous in width in that the development will maintain the consistent rhythm of side setbacks along Marine Parade. Ample building separation between buildings is provided to define the street character.

Finally, providing for ample landscaped areas also contributes to the compatibility in the urban environment. The proposed development provides for suitable landscaped areas within the front, side and rear setbacks and complies with the soft landscape provisions as set out within the RDCP2013. The development provides an ample ratio of the built to the unbuilt areas of the subject site and provides increased landscaping than the existing development and the neighbouring buildings within the street.

In considering the above, the development complies with the Land and Environment Court Planning Principles for compatibility within the existing streetscape and will generally remain consistent with the scale and density in the context of the surrounding area.

o To ensure ceiling heights for all habitable rooms promote light and quality interior spaces

The proposal will provide a floor-to-ceiling height of 2.7 metres as scaled from the amended plans and comply with the Apartment Design Guide and the RDCP2013.

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

The proposed development does not contribute to any significant adverse environmental impacts to the adjoining neighbours having regard to the latter sections of this report including Clause 5.1: Solar Access and Overshadowing and Clause 5.3 Visual Privacy.

In considering the above, the non-compliance to the external wall height is acceptable in complying with the objectives of the RDCP2013.

· Clause 5.5: View Sharing

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

· 6/98 Marine Parade, Maroubra

· 32 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

· 36 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra

· 1 The Corso, Maroubra

· 5/55 The Corso, Maroubra

· 63 The Corso, Maroubra (existing and approved da/647/2015)

· 67 The Corso, Maroubra

· 77 Torrington Road, Maroubra

· 79 Torrington Road, Maroubra

· 83 Torrington Road, Maroubra

The originally submitted plans included a communal rooftop terrace and associated structures including privacy screening, balustrading, planter boxes and roof hatch. Council raised concerns with the applicant with potential privacy impacts and the substantial variation to the building height. The applicant responded to Council’s concerns by submitting amended plans on the 24 April 2017 which included deleting the rooftop terrace and all associated structures, lowering the height of the roof parapet to RL30.97 and lift overrun to RL31.22.

Council’s planning officer contacted the objectors to carry out a view loss inspection on the 23 January 2017. The western neighbour at no. 83 Torrington Road, Maroubra was not available for an inspection. It should also be noted that the height pole to the north-western corner was not erected. However, the poles still provide an indication on the height of the building and the impact of views from the immediately affected neighbours. It is also worthwhile noting that the images of the height poles are based on the originally submitted plans received by Council on the 11 November 2016 and are not based on the amended plans received on the 24 April 2017.

To assess whether the extent of view loss which would result from the proposal is reasonable, an analysis has been undertaken with reference to the Land and Environment Court Planning Principle established in the matter of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140:

1. Quality of Views:

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

32 & 36 Mermaid Avenue, Maroubra; 1 The Corso, Maroubra

There are no view loss impacts to either nos. 32 or 36 Mermaid Avenue and 1 The Corso, Maroubra from the proposed development.

5/55 The Corso, Maroubra

The views consist of panoramic water views including a headland view of Magic Point to the south-east which provides some distant transitions between land and water and to the north-east the top of the headland at Mistral Point. The water views generally lie above the rooftops of the buildings east of the site.

South-eastern aspect from the third floor balcony area at no. 5/55 The Corso, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image)

63 The Corso, Maroubra (existing)

The first floor view consists of a water view with no distinct transition between land and water at the ground floor level. The view is partially obscured by the existing building at no. 88 Marine Parade. The first floor view is considered to be a partial view. The second floor view is also a partial water view and the top of the headland of Mistral Point which is generally obscured by the sites existing hipped roof and the roof forms of the existing buildings fronting Marine Parade. The second floor view is also considered to be a partial view.

63 The Corso, Maroubra (approved DA)

The first floor and second floor views from the family room and bedroom, respectively will be similar to that of the existing dwelling given there are no significant changes to the front façade of the dwelling. The new works includes the construction of a new north-east facing balcony which will slightly lessen the degree of which the roofline will obscure the water view.

Eastern aspect from the first floor family room at no. 63 The Corso, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

Eastern aspect from the second floor bedroom at no. 63 The Corso, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

65 The Corso, Maroubra

The first floor view consists of an obscured water view which sits between the northern end of the balustrading of no. 67 The Corso and the existing building at no. 88 Marine Parade. The first floor view is considered to be a partial view. The second floor bedroom view is also significantly obscured by the roofline of no. 67 The Corso and existing vegetation. The second floor east facing terrace area and living area receives water views including the top of the headland view of Mistral Point and some visible transitions of land and water which can be described as a partial panoramic view.

Eastern aspect from the first floor study room at no. 65 The Corso, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

North-eastern aspect from the second floor bedroom at no. 65 The Corso, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

Eastern aspect from the second floor terrace at no. 65 The Corso, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

67 The Corso, Maroubra

The first floor deck and living room consists of a water view which sits between the existing wall and roof line of no. 94 Marine Parade no. 88 Marine Parade. The view is considered to be a partial water view. The second floor bedroom and deck is similar to that of the first floor level. The second floor view has increased land and water transitions. The second floor bedroom on the eastern side of the dwelling house receives restricted water views.

Eastern aspect from the first floor living room/deck area at no. 67 The Corso, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

Eastern/south-eastern aspect from the second floor deck at no. 67 The Corso, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

79 Torrington Road, Maroubra

The first floor water view from the bedroom and adjoining deck area is largely obscured by existing natural vegetation on the reserve as well as the upper level addition between no. 83 Torrington Road and no. 94 Marine Parade. The view is considered to be a partial view.

Eastern aspect from the first floor balcony adjoining the bedroom at no. 79 Torrington Road, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

88 Marine Parade, Maroubra

Council did not have access into the premises and Council records do not identify the views that are visible from the room. However, in accordance with the survey plan submitted as part of the application it is estimated that the second floor residential flat building of no. 88 Marine Parade contains south-facing water views and whole views to an existing headland view of Magic Point.

6/98 Marine Parade, Maroubra

The third level comprises of a water view within the living areas including kitchen as well as non-habitable rooms including bathroom. The view incorporates a headland view with some notable transitioning views between land and water of Mistral Point. The panoramic view is generally obscured with the existing buildings along Marine Parade and existing vegetation. The view is considered to be a whole view of a headland. Views are also attainable from the rear balcony to the north-east with greater obscurity of the Mistral Point headland and a south-east facing water view between the setbacks of no. 98 and 100 Marine Parade.

North-eastern aspect from the third floor kitchen area at no. 6/98 Marine Parade, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

North-eastern aspect from the third floor balcony adjoining the living room area at no. 6/98 Marine Parade, Maroubra (Height poles shown in image).

2. Reasonable Expectation of View Retention:

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

5/55 The Corso, Maroubra

The views are obtained from a living room and adjoining balcony area of an existing apartment at the third floor level. The view is a panoramic view which is visible from both the front (north) and to the side (east), however the area in which view loss will occur is strictly to the east and across side boundaries. The view is visible from both a standing and sitting position within the living area/deck.

63 The Corso, Maroubra

The views are obtained from the first floor living room area and the second floor bedroom from a north-east facing window opening. The water view is visible directly to the east which is across a side boundary. The first floor living room view is only visible from a sitting position given the upper half of the window opening is of obscured glazing and the second floor view is only visible from a standing position directly to the east. It is likely that the recently approved second floor balcony adjoining the bedroom will appreciate both a sitting and standing view.

65 The Corso, Maroubra

The views are obtained from a first floor north-east and south-east facing study room window; second floor bedroom east facing window and a second floor terrace on the north-eastern side of the dwelling. All views consist of side views to the east and generally visible from both a sitting and standing position. The south-east facing second floor bedroom window is largely obscured by the roofline of no. 67 The Corso and the partial view becomes greatly reduced in a sitting position as opposed to a standing.

67 The Corso, Maroubra

The views are obtained from the first and second floor level north-east facing living room and bedrooms with adjoining balconies, respectively. All views are appreciated directly to the east which is also across the side boundaries. The views can be appreciated from both a sitting and a standing position within both the living room at the first floor and bedroom at the second floor as well as adjoining north-east facing balcony areas.

79 Torrington Road, Maroubra

The views are obtained from a first floor south-east facing bedroom window and adjoining west facing balcony at the rear of the dwelling house. The view is directly to the east and is across the side boundaries of the site and beyond allotments nos. 81 and 83 Torrington Road. The view is visible from both a sitting and standing position adjacent the window opening and the rear facing balcony area.

88 Marine Parade, Maroubra

The views are obtained from a second floor residential unit. As advised above Council did not have access into the premises and Council records do not discern the room uses of the site. Nevertheless, the views are likely to be obtained from a standing position and are strictly side views. Step 2 of the view loss planning principles within Tenacity Consulting v. Warringah Council state that the retention of side views are often deemed ‘unrealistic’.

6/98 Marine Parade, Maroubra

The views are obtained from a north-east facing kitchen and bathroom window and rear facing balcony of a third floor level apartment. The view is visible to the north-east which is an existing side view along Marine Parade. The kitchen and bathroom views are visible only from a standing position adjacent to the window opening and the views on the rear facing balcony areas to the north-east is visible from a standing position.

3. Extent of Impact:

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

5/55 The Corso, Maroubra

The extent of the view loss impact is considered to be negligible. Whilst the views are visible from significant areas including a living room and adjoining balcony area, the view loss impacts are not deemed to be significant. The premises will continue to retain sweeping panoramic views given its location on an elevated lot along The Corso as well as key viewing vistas including headland views of Mistral Point and Magic Point. The continuity of the horizon view and the minor distinctions of the land and water interface adjacent the proposed development will be preserved.

63 The Corso, Maroubra

The extent of the view loss impact is considered to be negligible. The views from key living areas are mostly from a sitting position due to the opaque glazing provided on the top half of the north-east facing bay window openings. In accordance with the view loss planning principles sitting views are not prioritsed and described “more difficult to protect than standing views”. The water view visible from both the first and second floor levels is also across the side boundary which has a lower retention value and is generally considered to be a partial view given the high level of obscurity of the existing buildings along Marine Parade and the sites (63 The Corso) existing hipped roof pitch. Views from the approved balcony directly to the east are likely to be improved given it extends beyond the second floor front building alignment.

65 The Corso, Maroubra

The extent of the view loss impact is considered to be minor to moderate. The views from the north-east/east facing first and second floor study and bedroom windows are side views and given the nature of the room uses as low-use rooms they generally have a low retention value. The proposal will result in a loss of partial water views from the north-east facing second floor terrace area and appropriate measures have been included to reduce the building height (as per the amended plans) to ensure the horizon view is preserved. Further, the proposal does not contribute to any reduction of key viewing aspects of the Mistral Point headland to the north of the site.

67 The Corso, Maroubra

The extent of the view loss impact is considered to be minor to moderate. The proposal will result in a partial loss of water views with some minor distinctions between land and water visible at the second floor level. The views are visible from the front (north-east) and have some value at the first floor level given it is from a living room area which also immediately adjoins a balcony and visible from both a sitting and standing position. No headland views are impacted by the development with some water views being preserved when viewed from an easterly aspect. The view loss is restricted to the areas above the roof line of the subject site (no. 90-92 Marine Parade).

79 Torrington Road, Maroubra

The extent of the view loss impact is considered to be negligible. The views are from a bedroom and adjoining balcony which are deemed to be low-use room purposes and is across the side boundary to the east of the dwelling. The proposed outlook is strictly of water views that have been obscured by the existing buildings along Marine Parade and the views are not deemed to be significant given the view does not contain any transitioning between land and water or headland aspects along the Maroubra foreshore.

88 Marine Parade, Maroubra

The extent of the view loss impact is estimated to be moderate to severe. The proposed development is likely to completely remove standing views to the Magic Point headland which is visible from the south-facing windows at the second floor level. The view loss is not categorically identified as being severe or devastating given the uncertainty relating to the room uses and the views are captured strictly from a side view.

6/98 Marine Parade, Maroubra

The extent of the view loss impact is considered to be minor. The standing views from the north-east facing kitchen window opening and adjoining balcony area are typically considered high-use rooms and will result in loss of some water views which lie just above the buildings along Marine Parade. The new building envelope will also result in partial loss of the top portion of the eastern end of the headland view. However, the iconic view of the Mistral Point headland view will generally be wholly retained and be unaffected from the proposed development and the reduced building height as per the amended plans will also maintain the horizon views.

4. Reasonableness of Proposed Development:

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

The proposed scheme is considered reasonable with respect to the proposal’s overall compliance with the relevant planning controls. The residential flat building demonstrates full numerical compliance with a suite of building envelope controls including landscaped open space, soft landscaping, floor space ratio, building depth and side and rear setbacks. As identified within the key issues section of this report, the non-compliance of the front setback control to the secondary street frontage along The Corso is acceptable in complying with the objectives of the RDCP2013 and the first, second and third floor balconies are the only areas which encroach within the front setback controls with the external walls fully compliant with the setback to the secondary street frontage. Nevertheless, the minor breach will not contribute to adverse view loss impacts given the relatively open nature of the balcony areas and lightweight nature of the timber screening will reduce the extent of the view loss impacts and the extent in which views are to be reduced are generally side views to the properties on the opposite side of The Corso in particular at nos. 63, 65 and 67 The Corso and no. 79 Torrington Road. The views are also generally considered to be partial water views set between the buildings along Marine Parade and do not consist of any key iconic features including headland or iconic views. A reduced setback will also not significantly reduce views from no. 6/98 Marine Parade in that the open side nature of the balconies, in particular along the south-eastern corner will remain open and provide through views past the balcony areas.

The non-compliance to the external wall height and overall building height will also not adversely impact the perceivable view loss impacts to the neighbouring premises. The proposal seeks to extend the external wall height to approximately 12.57 metres and exceeds the maximum wall height provision of 10.5 metres and exceeds the maximum building height of 12 metres. A compliant wall height envisages a typical roof element which can achieve a maximum height of 12 metres. Therefore the impact of views to the south-western neighbour at no. 6/98 Marine Parade will be marginal which relies on a strict side view. The additional view loss impact arising mostly from the additional height of the roof parapet has since been lowered by an additional 250mm and as seen from the images from the height pole assessment the continuity of the horizon view will be fully retained. In addition to this, key viewing vistas of the Mistral Point headland along the Maroubra foreshore will also be fully retained. At nos. 63, 65 and 67 The Corso and 79 Torrington Road the breach to the wall height and overall building height at the first floor levels are also acceptable. The area of non-compliance reduces sky views and a three storey built form with a roof pitch is unlikely to further diminish any water views. The impact of view loss at the second floor level from nos. 63 and 67 The Corso are also supportable given the views are obtained from bedroom and adjoining balconies and also primarily side views which have low retention values as prescribed within Steps 2 and 3 of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah (2004) NSWLEC 140. Also, the breach impacts to no. 65 The Corso from the second floor terrace adjoining the living room will only marginally preserve side water views which neither comprises of a headland or iconic view component.

The departures to the wall and overall building height controls are unlikely to have any substantial view loss impacts to no. 5/55 The Corso and will continue to protect the panoramic water views along the Maroubra foreshore. It is also an unreasonable expectation that no. 88 Marine Parade preserve any views. A compliant building envelope at 12 metres in height will remove all views and the minor departure to the wall and building height will not improve the view loss situation. The view loss planning principles are explicit in that qualitatively it is unreasonable to protect side views and is no different in the current circumstance. The views from the public domain in particular along The Corso are also acceptable given viewing vistas from a south-eastern aspect will also wholly retain views.

Notwithstanding the above, the principles of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council also requires consideration on whether a more skillful design can provide the applicant with the same development potential and amenity and reduce the impact on the views to the neighbours. It is important to recognise that the proposed building envelope accommodates an increased setback from the south-western boundary as measured from the southern portion of the external wall by approximately 3.6 metres and will increase the easterly viewing corridor from the affected neighbours at nos. 63, 65 and 67 The Corso then an otherwise complying envelope scheme. The minor protrusion of the balconies is acceptable given a condition of consent has been included that the balconies be of a transparent finish. The increase to the average front setback of buildings along Marine Parade will open up southerly views from the first floor enclosed sunroom areas to the Magic Point headland. Other changes including the reduction in the height of the roof parapet will also preserve easterly/north-easterly horizon water views to the view affected neighbours. Overall, it is noted that a fully compliant scheme does not significantly improve the views in comparison to the one proposed and only substantial reductions in the floor area requirements will ensure total preservation of views to the extent that the proposal would be inconsistent with the built form outcome anticipated by Council’s controls.

It is clear that the planning principles of Tenacity Consulting v Warringah Council do not envisage the total retention of views, rather the intent of the 4 step planning principle is to ensure development achieves an equitable balance between the surrounding properties as far as practicable as possible. The additional view loss impacts are supportable and deemed to be reasonable.

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4: Excellence in urban design and development.

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

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

The demolition of the existing structures on site and construction of a new four storey residential flat building comprising 4 x 1 bedroom units and basement parking for 8 vehicles will not contribute to any unreasonable adverse impacts to the neighbouring dwellings and will remain in keeping with the streetscape character. The minor variation to the building height by 570mm as measured from the roof parapet and 820mm from the lift overrun will result in a variation less than 10% and will generally remain compatible with the size and scale of the neighbouring buildings along Marine Parade. A submitted Clause 4.6: Exceptions to the Development Standards will contribute to a better planning outcome and the exceedance to the building height will be consistent with the objectives of the R3: Medium Density Residential Zoning and Clause 4.3: Height of Buildings. The proposed building envelope will be compatible with the scale of existing developments along Marine Parade and does not detract from the street.

Notwithstanding this, the development will not contribute to adverse view loss impacts from the neighbouring dwellings. The view sharing principles acknowledges that view sharing does not prescribe the total retention of all significant views and vistas, rather that the development has been ‘sensitively and skillfully’ designed to ensure a reasonable levels of views are maintained. The neighbouring dwellings along The Corso/Torrington Road will result in minor view loss obtained mostly from side views; the impacted views from the north-eastern neighbour (no. 88 Marine Parade) are unavoidable with respect to a compliant building envelope and the south-western neighbour (no. 6/98 Marine Parade) will continue to preserve whole views headland views of Mistral Point along the Maroubra foreshore. Other relevant amenity impacts including overshadowing are acceptable given the compliance with the minimum solar access requirements of the ADG and a high level of amenity is provided to ensure a reasonable level of visual privacy for neighbouring dwellings.

The proposal is acceptable and is a reasonable addition within the foreshore area.

Recommendation

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

B. That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. Da/816/2016 for the demolition of the existing structures and construction of a four storey residential flat building containing 4 dwellings, basement car parking for 8 vehicles with access from The Corso, swimming pool at ground level and associated works (variation to height control) at No. 90-92 Marine Parade, Maroubra, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

Non standard conditions

a. Ceiling fans must be provided to all bedrooms and living room areas to provide natural ventilation into the residential apartments within the building.

b. The glass balustrading to the first, second and third floor levels shall have a transparent finish to allow equitable retention of views to the neighbouring properties.

c. Car space 05 at the basement level shall be deleted to comply with the maximum floor space ratio development standards of Clause 4.4 of the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012. The car space shall be replaced with vehicular access to Car Space 07.

d. Fences located on the north-eastern side boundary or rear boundary of the premises shall not exceed a maximum of 1800mm, measured above the ground level (existing). On sloping sites or at changes in ground levels, the maximum height of the fence may exceed the abovementioned specified height by up to 150mm maximum adjacent to any required ‘step-downs’ or changes in ground level.

The applicant and owner is advised that the relevant provisions of the Dividing Fences Act 1991 are to be satisfied accordingly and any necessary approvals or agreements should be obtained from the owner/s of the adjoining land beforehand.

Attachment/s:

1.⇨

DA Compliance Report - 90-92 Marine Parade, MAROUBRA

Included under separate cover

Ordinary Council 23 May 2017

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP23/17

Subject: 36-38 Gardeners Road, Kingsford (DA/65/2017)

Folder No: DA/65/2017

Author: Plandev Pty Ltd, Thomas Mithen

Proposal: Demolition of existing building and construction of new building containing restaurant, apartments and a cultural centre

Ward: West Ward

Applicant: Projects TT

Owner: Castellorizian Club Ltd

Summary

Recommendation: Approval


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The application is assessed by external planning consultant and referred to Council Meeting for determination as a Club Director is related to a Council employee.

1. Background

On 23 August 2016, Council granted development consent (DA 229/2016) for alterations and additions to the existing commercial building on the site, including:

· a new kitchen for the restaurant at the ground floor;

· a new entry and exterior terrace for the first floor dwelling; and

· a two storey addition on the Houston Road frontage for the Castellorizan Club with cultural centre at ground level and a meeting area, outdoor terrace and toilets on first floor.

The applicant has advised that retention of the existing building is cost-prohibitive and it was decided to lodge a development application for demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building in a similar form to that already approved on the site.

2. Proposal

The development application (DA) seeks approval for demolition of the existing building and construction of a new part two and three storey mixed use building.

A description of the proposal is summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Description of the Proposal

Level	Description
Ground	· restaurant including kitchen, coolroom, storage and amenities (141 sqm); · cultural centre and associated office; · lifts and stairs; · recessed waste storage area adjacent to the right of way;
First	· meeting area for a cultural centre (122 sqm) and adjoining outdoor terrace (50 sqm); · amenities, lift and stairs; · new two bedroom apartment (unit 1); · new three bedroom apartment (unit 2);
Second	· bedroom 2 (unit 1 below); and · bedroom 3 (unit 2 below).

Hours of Operation

The proposed hours of operation are:

Restaurant

· Sunday to Thursday 8:00 am to 11:30 pm

· Friday to Saturday 8:00 am to 12:30 am

Museum and Cultural Centre

· Sunday to Thursday 10:00 am to 11:30 pm

· Friday to Saturday 10:00 am to 12:30 am

Footpath Dining Area

The plans submitted with the DA shown footpath dining area along Houston Road including four tables for 20 people. The future use of Council’s footpath for an outdoor dining area associated with any approved restaurant will be subject to a separate licence application.

Public domain works

The following public domain works are proposed:

· provision of 3 on-street car spaces along the Houston Street frontage;

· streetscape/landscape upgrade works along Gardeners Road and Houston Road frontage; and

· provision of all-weather protection awning along both street frontages

3. Site and surrounds

The subject site is located at 36-38 Gardeners Road, Kingsford and otherwise identified as Lots 2 and 3 in DP 223374. The site is generally flat and is a regularly shaped corner allotment with frontages to both Gardeners and Houston Road.

The frontages are 11.4m and 34.5 metres to Gardeners and Houston Road respectively, and the total size of the land is 392 sqm.

The site contains a part single and part two storey brick building with a flat parapet roof (refer to Figure 2). The ground floor contains a restaurant (currently vacant) and the first floor contains a residential apartment. The site’s rear boundary includes a 3 m carriageway, which provides access to the rear of Nos. 40-42 Gardeners Road.

The surrounding area comprises a mix of commercial and residential buildings.

The adjoining property to the west at 40-42 Gardeners Road contains a two storey mixed use building. The adjoining property to the north at 125A Houston Road contains a part one and two storey warehouse used for commercial purposes.

Figure 2 – Subject Site

4. Submissions

· Caldwell Kent (Traffic Consultants)

· 125A Houston Road, Kingsford

· 40-42 Gardeners Road, Kingsford

Issues	Comments
Car Parking The key concerns raised by Caldwell Kent (Traffic Consultants) on behalf of the objectors in relation to car parking, include: · Lack of on-site car parking to satisfy the demand generated by the proposal · Inadequate parking survey relied upon for the approved DA includes only one day and shows a higher parking vacancy rate compared to their own parking analysis over three days · Parking calculation inaccurate and historical data from previous use should be relied on including surveys of existing members on travel patterns · Cultural centre is likely to attract people from a wider catchment than a social club, resulting on increased reliance on car travel to the site · Parking demand is likely to be higher than 1/10 people based on local statistical data · Service vehicle access has not been adequately addressed · Parking congestion in Houston Road and Gardeners road will have adverse impact on local business and residents · The three on-street parking spaces will be available for the general public.	The issue of car parking is discussed in Section 5 of this report.
Permissibility and planning controls · cultural centre is not defined in LEP 2012 and no planning controls apply to the site.	The subject site is zoned B2 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). Whilst a cultural centre is not defined under RLEP 2012, it is considered to fall under the definition of a ‘community centre’, which is permissible with Council’s consent in the B2 zone. As the proposal includes a use that caters to the physical, social and cultural development as well as welfare of the Castellorizian community, its description as a cultural centre (within the definition of a community facility) is appropriate. The description of the previously approved development included a cultural centre for the Castellorizian Association and the uses for the remaining part of the development (being a restaurant and residential units). The proposal has been assessed against the relevant planning controls in RLEP 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013).
Overdevelopment · The additional storey will result in overdevelopment of the site	RLEP 2012 prescribes a building height of 24m for the site, which would be the equivalent of up to eight storeys. The proposal has a height of up to 10.4 m, which is well below the LEP standard. Similarly, the proposal, with an FSR of 1.4:1 is below the maximum control of 1.5:1. Given the proposal complies with the key development parameters and the top floor will be setback from the street frontages to reduce its visual impact, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.
Impacts from waste storage adjacent to the laneway · Odour impacts · Blocking access from operation of plant · Insufficient size	The waste bins will be located in a recessed area of the building covered by the terrace above and with proper management and regular collection of waste, there will unlikely be unreasonable impacts on adjoining development. A condition is included in the recommended development consent to require the design of the garbage storage area in accordance with relevant requirements to service the proposal. The adjacent wash out area will provide opportunity to regularly clean bins to minimize odours. There is not expected to be any unreasonable blocking of access as a result of access to the waste storage area.
Blocking of windows along eastern wall at 40-42 Gardeners road	Refer to Section 5.5 of this report.
No Landscape plan and impact on nature strip	As the proposal involves a ground floor footprint that will extend over the entirety of the site (excluding the ROW) a landscape plan is not required. The indented parking area will be designed in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guideline.

Issues

Comments

Car Parking

The key concerns raised by Caldwell Kent (Traffic Consultants) on behalf of the objectors in relation to car parking, include:

· Lack of on-site car parking to satisfy the demand generated by the proposal

· Inadequate parking survey relied upon for the approved DA includes only one day and shows a higher parking vacancy rate compared to their own parking analysis over three days

· Parking calculation inaccurate and historical data from previous use should be relied on including surveys of existing members on travel patterns

· Cultural centre is likely to attract people from a wider catchment than a social club, resulting on increased reliance on car travel to the site

· Parking demand is likely to be higher than 1/10 people based on local statistical data

· Service vehicle access has not been adequately addressed

· Parking congestion in Houston Road and Gardeners road will have adverse impact on local business and residents

· The three on-street parking spaces will be available for the general public.

The issue of car parking is discussed in Section 5 of this report.

Permissibility and planning controls

· cultural centre is not defined in LEP 2012 and no planning controls apply to the site.

The subject site is zoned B2 under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 (RLEP 2012). Whilst a cultural centre is not defined under RLEP 2012, it is considered to fall under the definition of a ‘community centre’, which is permissible with Council’s consent in the B2 zone.

As the proposal includes a use that caters to the physical, social and cultural development as well as welfare of the Castellorizian community, its description as a cultural centre (within the definition of a community facility) is appropriate. The description of the previously approved development included a cultural centre for the Castellorizian Association and the uses for the remaining part of the development (being a restaurant and residential units).

The proposal has been assessed against the relevant planning controls in RLEP 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2013 (RDCP 2013).

Overdevelopment

· The additional storey will result in overdevelopment of the site

RLEP 2012 prescribes a building height of 24m for the site, which would be the equivalent of up to eight storeys. The proposal has a height of up to 10.4 m, which is well below the LEP standard. Similarly, the proposal, with an FSR of 1.4:1 is below the maximum control of 1.5:1. Given the proposal complies with the key development parameters and the top floor will be setback from the street frontages to reduce its visual impact, the proposal is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.

Impacts from waste storage adjacent to the laneway

· Odour impacts

· Blocking access from operation of plant

· Insufficient size

The waste bins will be located in a recessed area of the building covered by the terrace above and with proper management and regular collection of waste, there will unlikely be unreasonable impacts on adjoining development. A condition is included in the recommended development consent to require the design of the garbage storage area in accordance with relevant requirements to service the proposal. The adjacent wash out area will provide opportunity to regularly clean bins to minimize odours. There is not expected to be any unreasonable blocking of access as a result of access to the waste storage area.

Blocking of windows along eastern wall at 40-42 Gardeners road

Refer to Section 5.5 of this report.

No Landscape plan and impact on nature strip

As the proposal involves a ground floor footprint that will extend over the entirety of the site (excluding the ROW) a landscape plan is not required.

The indented parking area will be designed in accordance with Council’s Urban Design Guideline.

5. Key Issues

5.1 Traffic and Parking

Traffic Generation

The proposed development will result in a minor increase in floor area compared to the recently approved development primarily as a result of the conversion of the approved four bedroom dwelling into one two bedroom unit and one three bedroom unit.

The Statement of Environmental of Effects (SEE) submitted with the development application indicates the proposal would generate an additional 0.5-0.65 peak hour vehicle trips compared to the approved development. It is considered the increase in traffic would not have any noticeable effect on the performance of the surrounding road network. Council’s Development Engineer has raised no objection in relation to traffic impacts on the road network. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of traffic generation.

Car Parking

The proposed development will generate a parking demand for 18 car spaces in accordance with the parking rates in RDCP 2013, as outlined in Table 1 below.

Use	Parking Rate	Requirement
Restaurant	1 space per 40 sqm for the first 80 sqm then one space per 20 sqm thereafter for restaurant uses	141 sqm = 5 car spaces
Club facility	1 space per 10 people	100 persons = 10 car spaces
Residential apartments	1.2 spaces per two bedroom unit 1.5 spaces per three bedroom unit	1 x 2 bedroom + 1 x 3 bedroom = 2.7 say 3 car spaces
TOTAL		18 car spaces

The proposed development provides no on-site car parking, resulting in a shortfall of 18 car spaces. However, the proposal also includes the provision of 3 on-street car spaces along the Houston Street frontage, resulting in a shortfall of 15 car spaces.

The main concern raised in the public submissions relates to the lack of adequate justification for the departure from Council car parking controls.

The applicant justifies the departure from Council’s parking requirements on the basis that the proposal contains the same uses as the recently approved development on the site (DA 229/2016), which was supported by Council with no parking on the grounds that the site has good access to existing and future (light rail) public transport in the Kingsford Centre, and a reasonable level of on-street parking supply outside the peak daytime usage.

The existing building on the site contains a restaurant at ground level (currently vacant) with an area of approximately 200 sqm and one residential apartment above. Based on Council’s parking requirements under RDCP 2013 the existing development generates a demand of 8 car spaces for the restaurant and 1-1.5 spaces for the residential apartment (depending on the number of bedrooms) being a total of 9-10 spaces. There are currently two car spaces at the rear of the site accessed from Houston Road, representing a shortfall of 7-8 spaces in the existing situation.

The recently approved development sought to modify the existing building to reduce the size of the restaurant to 144 sqm, provide a museum on the ground floor of 121 sqm and a meeting area on the upper level of 148 sqm and retain a residential apartment (4 bedroom). The approved development was supported by Council with an identical parking provision as the current proposal (i.e. no on-site parking spaces and a proposal for 3 additional on-street spaces). The only difference is that the approved development contained an existing restaurant and parking credit applied, resulting in an increased shortfall of approximately 7 spaces on the site. Whilst parking credits are usually not applied to new development, when compared to the previous use of the site and existing parking situation, this is equivalent to the parking deficiency on the site increasing by approximately 7 spaces, the same as the approved development. Given the proposed development is very similar to the recently approved development it is reasonable to consider the parking shortfall in terms of the proposed restaurant in the current proposal against the modified existing restaurant in DA 229/2016.

Council’s Development Engineer raised concern with the parking shortfall in terms of Council’s DCP parking rates, however it was also noted that the shortfall is comparable to the approved development and that the proposal provides additional benefits in terms of compliance with flood planning levels and flood storage compared to the approved development.

RDCP 2013 provides for exceptions to the car parking rates subject to a range of considerations including but not limited to site constraints, proximity and access to public transport and the type of development and its impact on local traffic and parking conditions.

In view of these considerations the exception to the parking rate is acceptable in this circumstance because:

· the site has good access to public bus transport, including regular and frequent services to the City, Bondi Junction, Randwick, Maroubra Airport and Eastgardens;

· the future introduction of the South East Light Rail would increase accessibility to the site and reduce the reliance on private car use by staff and patrons. This is considered particularly relevant given the future light rail terminus at Kingsford will also be situated approximately 200m to the east of the subject site on Anzac Parade;

· the provision of any on-site car parking for this proposal is problematic given the geometry of the development site, the need to comply with flood planning levels and the need to provide flood storage; and

· the provision of three on-street spaces along the street frontage would assist in addressing the parking shortfall on the site.

The parking demand can also be satisfactorily managed through the preparation and implementation of the Green Travel Plan (GTP), which aims to reduce single occupant car trips and increase alternative forms of transport such as walking, car sharing and public transport. A condition to this effect is therefore included in the recommended development consent.

Given there would be no significant additional traffic or parking impacts on the surrounding area and the proposal would result in a better outcome for the site compared to the approved development, the departure from Council’s car parking controls is supported.

5.3 Streetscape/Design

Part D2 of DCP 2013 establishes the design parameters for development in the Kingsford Centre.

The corner site location and size of the subject site reduces the practicality of a two-block approach as stipulated in the D2 Kingsford Centre DCP.

In response, this proposal provides an active urban edge that addresses both Gardeners and Houston Roads to enhance the streetscape character with a bulk and scale that is appropriate for the site. A continuous awning will be placed around the corner of the building from Gardeners Road to Houston Road.

The proposal presents predominantly as a two storey development when viewed from the street, which is consistent with the built forms of Nos. 125 Houston Road and No. 40 Gardeners Road.

The proposed second floor is located towards the southern portion of the site and setback from the street frontages and is generally consistent with the scale of the existing three storey development to the east at Nos. 30-34 Gardeners Road.

The new building addition fronting Houston Road will also present with a slightly lower height than the existing highest point of the parapets and provides a transition in scale between Gardeners Road and residential development to the north in Houston Road.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposal provides an acceptable alternative solution to the ‘two-block’ approach on the corner site.

Figure 3 – Perspective view from street frontage

5.4 Acoustic Impacts

A Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) was submitted with the DA to assess the operation of the proposed restaurant and cultural centre in terms of environmental noise criteria.

The nearest potential noise sensitive receivers were identified on the subject site (residences at the first floor) and residences at 44-50 Gardeners Road (15 m) and 30 Gardeners Road (28 m).

The key noise sources associated with the proposal include mechanical plant and patron noise, particularly from patrons occupying the outdoor terrace. The NIA concludes the mechanical plant complies with the noise criteria at nearby residential receivers. The predicted cumulative noise level from patrons using the terrace and outdoor area complies with relevant noise criteria.

Also, internal noise impacts from road noise can also be mitigated to appropriate levels with inclusion of construction and design measures and treatments.

The NIA concludes appropriate noise levels can be achieved with implementation of construction recommendation.

A Management Plan was also submitted with the application to include details in relation to hours of operation, occupancy and management of complaints and staff training.

5.5 Windows on the eastern wall at 40-42 Gardeners Road

The proposed development will be constructed to the eastern boundary, resulting in the blocking of some the windows along the eastern façade at No. 40-42 Gardeners Road, which provide light to a reception/office area associated with a commercial use at the first floor. The proposed development will contain similar setbacks to the approved development, except for the proposed second floor plan, which has been set back from the eastern boundary to provide some building separation. It is understood an agreement was reached between neighbouring parties for skylights to be installed at No. 40–42 as a result of the approved development blocking these windows. However, there is no agreement in relation to the provision of skylights for the adjoining property in this current proposal. Given the commercial nature of the affected windows the blocking of these windows is acceptable. It is noted the amenity of the northern-most window along this eastern façade is to be retained through the proposal’s inclusion of an outdoor terrace in the adjacent location. The first floor of the building is to be setback by 700m from the boundary, in the area adjacent to this terrace.

Figure 4 – Affected windows shown boxed and window retaining light is marked with an arrow

5.6 Equitable Access

The applicant submitted a Access Audit Report, prepared by ILC Access dated 19 January 2017, which addresses the requirements for access by people with disabilities based on the Building Code of Australia and the objectives of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The assessment only relates to the commercial/restaurant component of the development and not the dwellings.

The proposal includes an accessible ramp along the Houston Street frontage through the main entry of the building. Accessible toilet facilities are provided for patrons of the restaurant and cultural centre at ground floor and the meeting room at the first floor. Lift access is also provided between the ground and first floor.

The Access Audit Report concludes that paths of travel for persons with a disability would comply with Building Code of Australia, relevant Australian Standards and Disability Discrimination Act.

5.7 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.

5.8 Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

5.9 Conclusion

The proposal is fits the definition of a ‘community centre’ under RLEP 2012, which is permissible with consent in the B2 zone. The proposal also meets the objectives of the B2 – Local Centre zoning as it will provide a compatible mix of permissible uses that will provide for the cultural needs of a community group.

The proposal complies with the site’s FSR and height standards under RLEP 2012.

The proposal is compatible with the immediate commercial and residential context and the design and layout achieves an acceptable degree of compliance with the D2 – Kingsford Centre DCP Controls. It will provide active edge to the street frontages and all weather protections for pedestrians and public domain works including outdoor footpath seating associated with the restaurant to enliven the precinct.

The proposal would not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on residential development particularly in terms of noise from mechanical plant and patrons and would be able to comply with relevant environmental noise criteria.

The proposal would not result in any significant additional impacts already assessed and approved under the recently approved DA for a similar development on the site.

The proposal is therefore suitable for approval.

Recommendation

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 65/2017 for demolition of existing building and construction of new building containing restaurant, apartments and a cultural centre, at Nos. 36-38 Gardeners Road, 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

Hours of Operation

66. The hours of operation are restricted to the following;

a. The hours of operation for the Restaurant are to be: from;

· 8:00am to 11:30pm Sunday to Thursday, and

· 8:00am to 12:30am Friday to Saturday.

· The operation of the kitchen exhaust is to be time switched to cease operation at 10:00pm.

b. The hours of operation of the Cultural Centre are to be:

· 10:00am to 11:30pm Sunday to Thursday; and

· 10:00am to 12:30am Friday to Saturday.

Acoustic

101. The proposed uses and operation of the premises must be in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement (V2.0) prepared by SLR Global Environmental Solutions dated 23 January 2017.

102. The proposed use of the premises must be implemented in accordance with the Management Plan dated 8 February, 2017 – Revision D.

103. A report/correspondence prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics shall be submitted to Council 3 months after occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates that noise and vibration emissions from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, relevant conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations). The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

Green Travel Plan

109. Prior to the issue of the final Occupation Certificate, a detailed Green Travel Plan shall be submitted to Council’s Manager Integrated Transport for approval to promote the use of public transport and other sustainable modes of transport by members of the Castellorizan Club and restaurant patrons. The GTP shall address but not limited to sustainable transport targets; strategies and actions to be implemented to encourage sustainable transport modes; and an annual monitoring and reporting programme.

Attachment/s:

1.⇨

DA Compliance Report - DA/65/2017 - 36-38 Gardeners Road, KINGSFORD

Included under separate cover

Ordinary Council 23 May 2017

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Director City Planning Report No. CP24/17

Subject: 21 Meehan Street, Matraville (DA/63/2017)

Folder No: DA/63/2017

Author: Willana Associates, Pty Ltd

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling house and construction of new attached dual occupancy and swimming pools

Ward: South Ward

Applicant: Mr M Lescesin

Owner: Mr B A P Lefevre & Ms V E Rousseaux

Summary

Recommendation: Approval


	Subject Site




	Submissions received
	Ù North
	Locality Plan

Development Application Executive summary report

The application has been assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Council for determination as a Council employee resides at the rear of the site.

Proposal

It is proposed to:

§ Demolish the existing dwelling house and associated structures on the subject site.

§ Undertake minor earthworks.

§ Remove all existing vegetation and provide new landscaped surrounds, including the erection of a new front fence.

§ Construct an attached dual occupancy (Unit 1 and Unit 2), part two / part three storeys each and each dwelling consisting of three (3) bedrooms, an attached single garage and each containing an inground swimming pool within the rear yard.

Note: No subdivision is proposed.

Site

The subject site is legally described as Lot 23 in DP 245581 and addressed as 21 Meehan Street, Matraville. It is located on the eastern side of Meehan Street and has a 12.955m frontage (western boundary) to the street. The rear boundary is 17.92m to the east. The side boundaries are 35.585m to the north and 35.66m to the south. The total area of the site, indicated on the submitted survey, is 589m².

The subject site currently consists of a single storey dwelling house of fibro construction, with a pitched, tiled roof. Contours provided on the submitted survey plan indicate that the site has a distinct fall from the front boundary to the rear boundary of approximately 4.45m and consequently, the rear of the existing dwelling is raised above the existing ground level. A set of steps provides access from the rear backyard to a balcony that extends across the rear elevation.

There is vehicular access that extends from Meehan Street and along the northern side of the subject site which leads to a detached garage at the rear corner of the site.

Paving is limited to the two concrete strips that form the driveway and a pedestrian pathway that leads from the front boundary to the entrance of the dwelling, along the southern boundary. A paling fence extends along the side boundaries, as well as along the rear boundary. There is currently no front fence.

The subject site is located within a residential area characterised by one to two storey, detached dwelling houses. The dwellings vary from contemporary to traditional in style.

The property known as 19 Meehan Street adjoins the subject site to the north. It is similar in size to the subject site and consists of a single storey, brick dwelling house, with a pitched tiled roof. There is an in-ground pool at the rear of this property.

The property known as 23 Meehan Street adjoins the subject site to the south. The property currently consists of a similar single storey fibro constructed dwelling house, with a pitched, tiled roof. There is an in-ground pool at the rear of this property. Council is currently in receipt of a DA for the redevelopment of this site for an attached dual occupancy (DA/51/2017), similar to that of the proposed design at 21 Meehan Street. This DA is currently under assessment.

There are two (2) properties that adjoin the subject site to the east. The rear boundaries of 1155 and 1157 Anzac Parade adjoin the subject site to the east. Each adjoining property contains a detached dwelling house with vehicular access via Anzac Parade.

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:

· 19 Meehan St, Matraville

· 1157 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Issues	Comments
19 Meehan Street, Matraville Overshadowing - Due to the non-compliant setbacks, the overshadowing will be greater. Visual Privacy - There are four windows along the northern boundary, located 1.2m from the side boundary. - Reduction in the size of windows is requested. External Wall Height - The external wall height is non-compliant with the RDCP 2013. Stormwater - Runoff due to the steep sloping Site. - The water tank locations have not been included on the plans. - Control areas Bin Storage - The bin location within the lower ground level seems impractical when they need to be put out for bin collection. Swimming Pool - The tiles surrounding the pools (decking) to the side boundary impacts the amenity of 19 Meehan Street. Asbestos Removal - Conditions to be included to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos fibro. Excavation - Excavation of the earth should not be used to raise the natural ground level at the rear of the property. Tree Removal - A number of large trees are requested to be removed along the northern boundary. - No area has been set aside for “a minimum of 1 canopy tree for each dwelling capable of reaching a mature height of at least 6m”.	Overshadowing - The scheme has been amended and the Architect has provided amended shadow diagrams. - The second floor has been setback to 1.8m on the northern and southern boundaries to minimise the impact and achieve compliance. Visual Privacy - Amended plans have addressed this issue by implementing privacy screens to windows and creating highlight windows that will restrict overlooking. In addition a condition will be included in a consent to ensure the privacy screens are appropriately angled to direct sightlines in an aim to minimise overlooking. External Wall Height - The existing ground levels and building RL’s have been reviewed. The variance will be located at the rear of the building, reaching a maximum variance of approximately 0.1m (based on an existing RL 36.6 and proposed RL 44.68 at the underside of the eave) at the southeast wall section. This is a minimal variance. It is discussed further below in the section ‘External Wall Height’. - The parapet walls that exceeded the external wall height of 8.0m have been removed and replaced with a fascia and gutter to comply with the external wall height control. Stormwater - Council’s Engineering section has recommended conditions to be included in a consent. They are listed in the accompanying Compliance Report. - The architect has provided the location of the water tanks for each dwelling on the amended architectural plans. Bin Storage - The bin pathways to the kerb side collection area have been shown on the amended architectural plans and are acceptable. Swimming Pool - The proposed pool surrounds are proposed to be travertine. Any associated impacts resulting from walking on the pool surrounds would be negligible. Users are expected to be barefoot. The pool is expected to be limited in use, i.e. mostly during reasonable hours of the day and during certain months of the year. The impacts would be reduced by the large setbacks from the pools to the rear and side boundaries. Asbestos Removal - Conditions will be included to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos fibro. Excavation - The submitted plans indicate some existing RLs at the sites rear. No proposed RLs are indicated. To ensure that the existing ground levels are not raised conditions are recommended to be included in a consent. Tree Removal - A condition of consent is recommended to ensure that appropriate measures are provided during the removal of the trees. Replacement trees will assist in long term stability of soils. - A condition is recommended by Council’s Landscape Development Officer that will ensure at least one canopy tree is provided per dwelling. Details are required to be indicated on the final landscape plan provided with the Construction Certificate
1157 Anzac Parade, Matraville Visual and Acoustic Privacy Rear Boundaries - Overlooking from the rear balconies off the living areas of each duplex. - The living spaces are located at the rear of the dwellings, being the eastern boundaries, which will incur privacy implications to the adjoining neighbours to the south. Noise Pollution - Lack of information regarding the pool pump, filter and equipment. Visual Bulk - Due to the steep sloping of the site, the external wall height is non-compliant with the RDCP 2013 at the rear of the property. Architectural plans - Lower ground clarity of access - Pool equipment and pumps Pool - Is the pool an inground pool or above ground pool? - Existing trees provide some privacy from the pool to the adjoining properties to the rear. - Will there be lighting around the pools? - Will there be sufficient drainage in the case of the pools overflowing? Tree Removal - It is requested that the existing mature trees on the boundary be retained to maintain privacy, which can be conditions. Rear Fence - Due to the number of DA’s adjoining 1157 Anzac Parade to the rear, how will the integrity be maintained along the common boundaries, including the fencing?	Visual and Acoustic Privacy - The visual and acoustic privacy issues are discussed below. It is noted that the plans have been amended to incorporate screening to minimize overlooking. The upper levels will comply with the minimum setback requirement of RDCP 2013. This requirement aims to provide a reasonable level of visual and acoustic separation between neighbouring properties. Noise Pollution - The applicant has provided the pool pump, filter and equipment on the amended architectural plans. A condition is recommended to limit the noise impacts of the pool equipment. Architectural plans - Access from the pool to the lower ground has been provided on the amended architectural plans. - The eastern wall which faces the pool shows the materials and finish on the amended architectural plans. Pool - The pool will be an inground pool. - Trees will be planted along the rear boundary to provide privacy for the adjoining properties. - There will be pool lighting on the eastern side of the pool with LED underwater lights and therefore, will not be imposing to the rear neighbour. Tree Removal - Council’s Landscape Development Officer has not raised any issue with the tree removal proposed. The trees along the rear boundary are either weed species or low value species. Conditions have been recommended to be included in a consent. The issue of privacy is discussed in the section below ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’. Rear Fence - Any changes to dividing fences are a matter for the respective owers in accordance with the Dividing Fence Act.

Issues

Comments

19 Meehan Street, Matraville

Overshadowing

- Due to the non-compliant setbacks, the overshadowing will be greater.

Visual Privacy

- There are four windows along the northern boundary, located 1.2m from the side boundary.

- Reduction in the size of windows is requested.

External Wall Height

- The external wall height is non-compliant with the RDCP 2013.

Stormwater

- Runoff due to the steep sloping Site.

- The water tank locations have not been included on the plans.

- Control areas

Bin Storage

- The bin location within the lower ground level seems impractical when they need to be put out for bin collection.

Swimming Pool

- The tiles surrounding the pools (decking) to the side boundary impacts the amenity of 19 Meehan Street.

Asbestos Removal

- Conditions to be included to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos fibro.

Excavation

- Excavation of the earth should not be used to raise the natural ground level at the rear of the property.

Tree Removal

- A number of large trees are requested to be removed along the northern boundary.

- No area has been set aside for “a minimum of 1 canopy tree for each dwelling capable of reaching a mature height of at least 6m”.

Overshadowing

- The scheme has been amended and the Architect has provided amended shadow diagrams.

- The second floor has been setback to 1.8m on the northern and southern boundaries to minimise the impact and achieve compliance.

Visual Privacy

- Amended plans have addressed this issue by implementing privacy screens to windows and creating highlight windows that will restrict overlooking. In addition a condition will be included in a consent to ensure the privacy screens are appropriately angled to direct sightlines in an aim to minimise overlooking.

External Wall Height

- The existing ground levels and building RL’s have been reviewed. The variance will be located at the rear of the building, reaching a maximum variance of approximately 0.1m (based on an existing RL 36.6 and proposed RL 44.68 at the underside of the eave) at the southeast wall section. This is a minimal variance. It is discussed further below in the section ‘External Wall Height’.

- The parapet walls that exceeded the external wall height of 8.0m have been removed and replaced with a fascia and gutter to comply with the external wall height control.

Stormwater

- Council’s Engineering section has recommended conditions to be included in a consent. They are listed in the accompanying Compliance Report.

- The architect has provided the location of the water tanks for each dwelling on the amended architectural plans.

Bin Storage

- The bin pathways to the kerb side collection area have been shown on the amended architectural plans and are acceptable.

Swimming Pool

- The proposed pool surrounds are proposed to be travertine. Any associated impacts resulting from walking on the pool surrounds would be negligible. Users are expected to be barefoot. The pool is expected to be limited in use, i.e. mostly during reasonable hours of the day and during certain months of the year. The impacts would be reduced by the large setbacks from the pools to the rear and side boundaries.

Asbestos Removal

- Conditions will be included to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos fibro.

Excavation

- The submitted plans indicate some existing RLs at the sites rear. No proposed RLs are indicated. To ensure that the existing ground levels are not raised conditions are recommended to be included in a consent.

Tree Removal

- A condition of consent is recommended to ensure that appropriate measures are provided during the removal of the trees. Replacement trees will assist in long term stability of soils.

- A condition is recommended by Council’s Landscape Development Officer that will ensure at least one canopy tree is provided per dwelling. Details are required to be indicated on the final landscape plan provided with the Construction Certificate

1157 Anzac Parade, Matraville

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

Rear Boundaries

- Overlooking from the rear balconies off the living areas of each duplex.

- The living spaces are located at the rear of the dwellings, being the eastern boundaries, which will incur privacy implications to the adjoining neighbours to the south.

Noise Pollution

- Lack of information regarding the pool pump, filter and equipment.

Visual Bulk

- Due to the steep sloping of the site, the external wall height is non-compliant with the RDCP 2013 at the rear of the property.

Architectural plans

- Lower ground clarity of access

- Pool equipment and pumps

Pool

- Is the pool an inground pool or above ground pool?

- Existing trees provide some privacy from the pool to the adjoining properties to the rear.

- Will there be lighting around the pools?

- Will there be sufficient drainage in the case of the pools overflowing?

Tree Removal

- It is requested that the existing mature trees on the boundary be retained to maintain privacy, which can be conditions.

Rear Fence

- Due to the number of DA’s adjoining 1157 Anzac Parade to the rear, how will the integrity be maintained along the common boundaries, including the fencing?

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

- The visual and acoustic privacy issues are discussed below. It is noted that the plans have been amended to incorporate screening to minimize overlooking. The upper levels will comply with the minimum setback requirement of RDCP 2013. This requirement aims to provide a reasonable level of visual and acoustic separation between neighbouring properties.

Noise Pollution

- The applicant has provided the pool pump, filter and equipment on the amended architectural plans. A condition is recommended to limit the noise impacts of the pool equipment.

Architectural plans

- Access from the pool to the lower ground has been provided on the amended architectural plans.

- The eastern wall which faces the pool shows the materials and finish on the amended architectural plans.

Pool

- The pool will be an inground pool.

- Trees will be planted along the rear boundary to provide privacy for the adjoining properties.

- There will be pool lighting on the eastern side of the pool with LED underwater lights and therefore, will not be imposing to the rear neighbour.

Tree Removal

- Council’s Landscape Development Officer has not raised any issue with the tree removal proposed. The trees along the rear boundary are either weed species or low value species. Conditions have been recommended to be included in a consent. The issue of privacy is discussed in the section below ‘Visual and Acoustic Privacy’.

Rear Fence

- Any changes to dividing fences are a matter for the respective owers in accordance with the Dividing Fence Act.

Key Issues

Building Height

The amended proposal has brought the maximum height down to be compliant with the RLEP 2012 development standard. However, there is still a minor variation to the wall height control.

External Wall Height

An external wall height variance will be located at the rear southeast corner of the building, reaching a maximum of approximately 0.1m based on the existing RL of RL 36.6 and proposed RL of RL 44.68. NB: The amended plans indicate an RL of 44.62, however this RL is the underside of the gutter and fascia, rather than the underside of the eave. Regardless, the variance is minimal and considered appropriate in this case given the following:

§ It will be negligible to the visual bulk and scale of the building in comparison to a compliant situation.

§ The rear location will not make the variance apparent from the street and thus impact on the scale presented to the street and character of the building.

§ The variance will not cause unreasonable impacts upon the neighbouring dwellings. In particular, no undue overshadowing will result.

§ Adequate articulation is provided on the side elevations to manipulate the visual massing.

Colour Schedule

The applicant has submitted an external schedule of colours/materials/textures and finishes. The use of extensive dark/black colours is generally not favoured for streetscapes. Colours are preferred to be limited to lighter, earthier tones colours. However, since the site is not within a Foreshore Scenic Protection Area and the building base will not result in an overly dominant impact to the streetscape, no concerns are raised to the use of a dark, contrasting colour for the building base. The cladding colour is recommended to be lighter and earthier in tone in comparison to that indicated on elevation plans as it will be provided at the front of the building. A condition is recommended to require an amended schedule to be submitted to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of City Planning.

NB: The colour scheme indicated on elevation plans is darker than that provided on a streetscape image provided on the cover page of the architectural plans. No concerns are raised to the lighter tones indicated on streetscape image.

Visual and Acoustic Privacy

The proposed rear setbacks are 9.5m-10m, which are compliant with the minimum requirement of RDCP 2013. Compliance suggests the separation will provide a reasonable level of amenity between properties. An objective of the control states:

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

Nevertheless, privacy screens to rear balconies have been included to further assist in minimising the privacy impacts. A condition is recommended to ensure that the balconies are not fully enclosed by the screening. The height of the screening should not exceed 1.6m in height from the finished balcony level.

Other changes in relation to the privacy treatments have been indicated on amended architectural plans. They include screening to side windows, highlighted windows and screen planting along the rear boundary. A condition is recommended to ensure louvred screens on side elevations have appropriately angled louvres and spaces. A condition is also recommended to require appropriate screen planting along the rear boundary, ie. evergreen, dense trees that attain a height of approximately 5-6m

Overshadowing

The proposed additional shadows on the neighbouring property to the south, known 23 Meehan Street, Matraville, are reasonable given:

§ The neighbouring property is located to the south of the subject site and therefore any expectation of avoiding an additional impact is unreasonable.

§ The proposal is compliant with building envelope controls such a floor space ratio, building height, landscaped area, site coverage and setbacks. The only non-compliance is to the external wall height at the rear southeast corner. It is a minor height variance of approximately 0.1m that extends for a minimal length given the slope of the land. The variance will not result in any undue overshadowing.

§ Over three (3) hours of solar access will be maintained to the rear yard of 23 Meehan Street during June 21.

§ The building height and floor-to-ceiling heights are appropriate. The building height is complaint (i.e. with the overall building height standard of RLEP 2012. The floor-to-ceiling heights are proposed to achieve the minimum requirement. Further reductions are not favoured as they would not be in the interest of the internal amenity of the proposed dwellings, i.e. to facilitate light access and natural ventilation. The current proposal represents a fair balance between the on-site amenity and impacts on the neighbouring properties.

§ Council is currently in receipt of a DA for the redevelopment of this site for an attached dual occupancy (DA/51/2017), similar to that of the proposed design at 21 Meehan Street. This DA is currently under assessment.

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 development complies with the relevant development standards prescribed under Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012 and Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, with the exception of the external wall height proposed at the rear southeast corner of the built form. The variation will be minimal and not to result in any undue impacts in comparison to a compliant situation.

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

Recommendation

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. 63/2017 for the demolition of the existing dwelling house and the construction of new attached dual occupancy and swimming pools, at No. 21 Meehan Street, Matraville, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

Non standard conditions

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

a. Privacy screens having a height of a maximum of 1.6m above the finished floor level of rear balconies must be provided to the sides of the balconies. (NB: The screens can wrap around along the rear elevation for not more than half of the length of each balcony). The privacy screens must be constructed of metal or timber and the total area of any openings within the privacy screen must not exceed 25% of the area of the screen. Alternatively, the privacy screen may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing in a suitable frame.

Details are to be provided on Construction Certificate plans to the satisfaction of Council’s Director of City Planning prior to obtaining a Construction Certificate.

3. The privacy screens on the side elevations must be fixed, not exceed 25% of the area of the screen; extend at least 1.6m in height measured from the finished internal floor level of the respective room, and consist of slats oriented away from the private open space or windows of the neighbouring dwellings.

Alternatively, the windows may be constructed with translucent, obscured, frosted or sandblasted glazing.

Details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate plans.

External Colours, Materials & Finishes

4. No approval is granted to the dark colour of the external cladding. The color must be lighter and earthier in tone.

An amended colour scheme is to be submitted to and approved by Council’s Director of City Planning prior to issuing a construction certificate for the development.

Side/rear fences – Dividing Fences

5. No approval is granted go any dividing fences located on the side or rear boundaries.

Lower ground level

6. The openings on the rear and side elevations of the lower ground level, beyond the laundry/WC, must not be enclosed by any means. Where possible, the swimming pool equipment shall be relocated within the lower ground level.

Attachment/s:

1.⇨

DA Compliance Report - 21 Meehan Street, MATRAVILLE

Included under separate cover

Ordinary Council 23 May 2017

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

General Manager's Report No. GM8/17

Subject: Review of the Randwick City Council 2016-17 Operational Plan - March Quarter

Folder No: F2016/03001

Author: Karen Hawkett, Coordinator Integrated Planning & Reporting

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to update Councillors and the community on the implementation of the annual Operational Plan. The 2016-17 Operational Plan was adopted by Council on 28 June 2016. In this report, achievement and status comments are provided for each action in the 2016-17 Operational Plan. Highlights are also provided where appropriate.

Issues

This is the March 2017 Quarterly Report and third review of the 2016-17 annual Operational Plan.

All projects are proceeding as planned and overall all services were delivered to agreed standards.

During the March report period, key projects completed include refurbishment of the Malabar Childcare Centre, an upgrade of the Kensington Oval Grandstand and the first stage of works to the Water Treatment Plant at Council's Depot.

Council held several key events during the period, including the tenth annual Spot Festival and the Earth Hour Twilight Picnic and Markets.

From the activity undertaken by Council during the quarter there were many highlights. The following table lists our significant highlights:

City theme

City Plan Outcomes

Action code

Highlight

1.Leadership in Sustainability

1a. Vision for Randwick City Council

P001

Preparation of the 2017-18 Operational Plan commenced.

1.Leadership in Sustainability

1b. Leadership

P004

Preparations commenced to initiate the annual performance review cycle including presentations and briefing sessions.

1.Leadership in Sustainability

1b. Leadership

P006

The new ICARE about Learning Training Program booklet was reviewed and updated to support staff in their annual performance reviews.

ICARE about Learning Training Program booklet

1.Leadership in Sustainability

1b. Leadership

S017

Work was undertaken to expand Council's business continuity capabilities and resilience to major events, through the relocation of infrastructure to different locations around the network.

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

2a. Meeting Community Needs

P018

Council assisted NSW Families and Community Services and South Eastern Local Health District to identify appropriate premises for a community hub and foodbank.

2.A Vibrant and Diverse Community

2a. Meeting Community Needs

S034

In a new partnership with the Korean Cultural Centre, Korean storytimes for children are being delivered through the Korean Mamas Program.

Korean storytimes

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

2a. Meeting Community Needs

2b. Strong Partnerships

S038

S042

In the March quarter, a new outreach project commenced in South Coogee in partnership with Youth of The Streets.

2. A Vibrant and Diverse Community

2d. Cultural diversity

S043

Council held five community events of which the highlight was the tenth annual The Spot Festival.

The Spot Festival

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

3a. Communicating Effectively

S045

Council developed and implemented four Communication Plans to inform and engage the community on various Council activities, including the ANZAC Day Dawn Service at Coogee.

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

3b. Promoting Services

S054

1,192 people attended 145 different lifelong learning activities delivered through the Library, including chess and bridge club sessions.

3. An Informed and Engaged Community

3c. Community Involvement

S055

Council commenced new consultations on the Disability Inclusion Action Plan, the Heffron Tennis Centre, and Name the Light Rail Stops.

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

4a. Improved Design

P027

Work has been undertaken to improve design of the substation at the Kingsford light rail terminus.

4. Excellence in Urban Design and Development

4b. Robust Development Framework

P030

The new Design Excellence Panel has commenced operation.

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

5a. Maximise Open Space Use

P032

The tenderer to undertake the construction of the Coastal Walkway through the western part of the Malabar Headland National Park has been selected.

Artist Impression, Coastal Walkway

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

5b. Range of Activities

S058

Des Renford Leisure Centre achieved its highest ever Learn to Swim enrolments while the Gym achieved its highest membership base since opening in October 2013.

Learn to Swim class, DRLC

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

5c. Open Space Creation

P036

Seating has been reconfigured, and new planters and artwork installed in the Meek Street plaza.

New parking Bay, Anzac Parade

5. Excellence in Recreation and Lifestyle Opportunities

5d. Innovative Library Programs

S063

Randwick City Library extended its outreach program, The Storytime Trail, in conjunction with Waverley and Woollahra Libraries.

6. A Liveable City

6a. Public Asset Management

S065

The reconfiguration of sports fields from summer to winter sports was completed on time despite the unseasonably long wet weather period.

6. A Liveable City

6a. Public Asset Management

P043

Construction of new amenities in the south precinct at Heffron Park and the upgrade to the Randwick Town Hall has commenced.

New amenities, south precinct, Heffron Park

6. A Liveable City

6c. Community Safety

P044

All Council’s domestic violence prevention programs scheduled for the current financial year have been fully implemented.

6. A Liveable City

6d. Strategic Land Use Framework

P046

Council prepared a detailed submission to the Department of Planning and Environment on its ePlanning Portal proposal and associated regulation.

6. A Liveable City

6e. Housing Diversity

P049

Council made recommendations to strengthen the draft Central District Plan's initiatives on affordable housing, in its submission to the Greater Sydney Commission.

6. A Liveable City

6f. Distinctive neighbourhoods

P050

Two focus groups were held as part of the broader consultation on the Randwick Junction Town Centre Strategy.

7. Heritage that is Protected and Celebrated

7a. Heritage

S081

A pop up heritage exhibition - This is where they travelled - was launched at the Lionel Bowen Library.

This is where they travelled exhibition

8. A strong Local Economy

8a. Vibrant commercial centres

P053

Business audits for Kingsford and Kensington town centres were updated.

8. A strong Local Economy

8b. Hospital and university precincts

P055

The University-Hospital Precinct Reference Group (Council, UNSW and NSW Health Infrastructure) jointly prepared a submission on the draft Central District Plan.

8. A strong Local Economy

8c. Effective partnerships

P056

Another series of free business skills workshops for Randwick City businesses and residents have been developed.

8. A strong Local Economy

8d. Tourism

P057

Council provided Randwick City Tourism Inc with an information stall at The Spot Festival.

9. Integrated and Accessible Transport

9a. Active Transport Network

P059

The Spot Pedestrian and Mobility Plan study is nearing finalisation.

10. A Healthy Environment

10a. Leader in Environmental Sustainability

S089

The Earth Hour Twilight Picnic and Markets attracted a good crowd despite the inclement weather.

Earth Hour Twilight Picnic and Markets

10. A Healthy Environment

10b. Management of Environmental Risks

P067

The Maroubra Bay Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan was adopted by Council in February 2017.

Maroubra Bay Floodplain Risk Management Study and Plan

10. A Healthy Environment

10c Biodiversity and natural heritage

S092

P068

Council’s focus was intensive follow up weed control at all sites to minimise strong weed regeneration as a result of high level rainfall and humid conditions.

Due to the unseasonal high temperatures, scheduled plantings of street trees were postponed during the March quarter.

10. A Healthy Environment

10d. Sustainable Waste Technologies

S094

Council collected approximately 14,000 tonnes of domestic waste of which 48% was diverted from landfill.

10. A Healthy Environment

10e. Water conservation

P073

The design of Maroubra Beach irrigation works has been completed.

10. A Healthy Environment

10f. Energy conservation

P075

An additional 30 kilowatts of solar PV panels were installed on Prince Henry Centre.

Solar PV panels on Prince Henry Centre

In acknowledgement of our efforts, Randwick City’s K2K Urban Design Competition was awarded the winner in the A Great Plan category of the Greater Sydney Commission’s inaugural Greater Sydney Planning Awards.

Relationship to City Plan

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 1: Leadership in Sustainability.

Direction 1a: Council has a long term vision based on sustainability.

Financial impact statement

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

Conclusion

The purpose of the March Quarterly Review is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all actions as set out in the adopted 2016-17 Annual Operational Plan. In addition, given that the Operational Plan is based on the 20-year Randwick City Plan and that Council’s reporting format is based on outcomes rather than organisational structure, the March quarterly report also provides a level of accountability against our long term vision for the City of Randwick.

Recommendation

That the information contained in the March Quarterly Review of the 2016-17 annual Operational Plan be received and noted.

Attachment/s:

1.⇩

2016-17 Randwick City Council annual Operational Plan – March Quarter Report

Ordinary Council 23 May 2017

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Notice of Rescission Motion No. NR6/17

Subject: Notice of Rescission Motion submitted by Crs Seng, Andrews and Stavrinos - 27 Duncan Street, Maroubra (DA/234/2016)

Folder No: DA/234/2016

Submitted by: Councillor Seng, Ted Seng; Councillor Andrews, Central Ward; Councillor Stavrinos, West Ward

That the resolution passed at the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 May 2017 in relation to Item D41/17, and reading as follows:

“That Council, as the consent authority, change its determination of Development Application No. 234/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing building, fencing with associated works and conversion to childcare centrecatering 24 children, at No. 27 Duncan Street, Maroubra by granting development consent, subject to the following 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*	*Received by Council*
SK005 Rev J	Unknown	12.10.16	23 December 2016
SK006 Rev A		14.03.16	7 November 2014
SK007 Rev C		13.02.17	14 February 2017
SLP 01 Issue A	Hugh Burnett	1 July 2016	23 December 2016

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

a. The afterhours use and weekend use shall be deleted from the development. An amended Plan of Management shall be submitted to Council for approval prior to a Construction Certificate being issued for the development.

b. The number of child places at the childcare centre shall be restricted to a maximum of 24.

c. The art area in the outbuilding shall be deleted and replaced with a car space as shown on the architectural plan SK005 Rev J received by Council

d. Any necessary approvals must be obtained from Department of Community Services and any other relevant authorities relating to the requirements for the operation and management of the Child Care Centre.

e. Children are required to exit the vehicle from the kerb side of the vehicle.

f. A 1m deep landscape buffer shall be installed along the Duncan Street frontage excluding access paths. Details shall be included in the approved landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority.

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE A CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED

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

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

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.

Long Service Levy

4. Any required Long Service Levy payment, under the Building and Construction Industry Long Service Payments Act 1986, is to be forwarded to the Long Service Levy Corporation or the Council, prior to the issuing of a Construction Certificate, in accordance with Section 109F of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979.

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

Sydney Water Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of the procedures and arrangements for the on-going waste management of the child care centre including collection, storage and removal of waste and recycling of materials shall be submitted to Council’s manager of Waste prior to a Construction certificate being issued for the development.

6. Details of the procedures and arrangements for the on-going waste management of the child care centre including collection, storage and removal of waste and recycling of materials shall be submitted to Council’s manager of Waste prior to a Construction certificate being issued for the development.

Security Deposit

7. 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:

· $2000.00 - 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

8. 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, must match the back of the existing footpath along the full site frontage.

The design alignment level/s at the property boundary as issued by Council and their relationship to the footpath must be indicated on the building plans for the construction certificate (a construction note is considered satisfactory). The design alignment level at the street boundary, as issued by the Council, must be strictly adhered to.

Any enquiries regarding this matter should be directed to Council’s Development Engineer on 9093 6881.

9. The above alignment levels and the site inspection by Council’s Development Engineer have been issued at a prescribed fee of $155.00 (inclusive of GST). This amount is to be paid prior to a construction certificate being issued for the development.

Stormwater Drainage

10. Surface water/stormwater (from the redeveloped portion of the site) must be drained and discharged to the street gutter or suitably designed absorption pit, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be included in the construction certificate application for the development.

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.

Sydney Water

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

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

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

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

· Building plan approvals

· Connection and disconnection approvals

· Diagrams

· Trade waste approvals

· Pressure information

· Water meter installations

· Pressure boosting and pump approvals

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

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

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

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

REQUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE

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

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

Building Code of Australia & Fire Safety

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

13. All new building work (including alterations, additions, fit-out work and fire safety works are to be carried out in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and details are to be included in the Construction Certificate, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority.

Access & Facilities

14. Access and/or facilities for people with disabilities must be provided to all new building work in accordance with any relevant provisions of the Building Code of Australia Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010, to the satisfaction of the Certifying Authority and details are to be provided with the Construction Certificate application.

Public Utilities

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

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

REQUIREMENTS 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.

Certification, PCA & other Regulatory Requirements

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

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

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

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

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

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

e) the relevant requirements of the Home Building Act 1989 (as applicable) must be complied with and details provided to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council.

Demolition Work & Removal of Asbestos Materials

18. Demolition work must be carried out in accordance with the following requirements:

a) Demolition work must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard, AS2601 (2001) - The Demolition of Structures and a Demolition Work Plan is required to developed and implemented to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority prior to commencing any demolition works.

b) The demolition, removal, storage and disposal of any materials containing asbestos must be carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of WorkCover NSW, Council’s Asbestos Policy and the following requirements:

· A licence must be obtained from WorkCover NSW for the removal of friable asbestos and or more than 10m² of bonded asbestos (i.e. fibro)

· Asbestos waste must be disposed of in accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 & relevant Regulations

· A sign must be provided to the site/building stating “Danger Asbestos Removal In Progress”

· A Clearance Certificate or Statement must be obtained from a suitably qualified person (i.e. Occupational Hygienist) upon completion of the asbestos removal works, which is to be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to issuing an Occupation Certificate.

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.

Construction Noise & Vibration

19. Noise and vibration emissions during the construction of the building and associated site works must not result in damage to nearby premises or result in an unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents and the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 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 and Vibration Management Plan, prepared in accordance with the DECC Construction Noise Guideline, by a suitably qualified person is to be developed and implemented throughout the works, to the satisfaction of the Council. A copy of the plan must be provided to the Council and Principal Certifying Authority prior to the commencement of site works.

REQUIREMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION & SITE WORK

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

Road / Asset Opening Permit

20. 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.

Building Inspection Requirements

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

Excavations & Support of Adjoining Land

22. 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.

23. 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 are to 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.

Retaining walls, shoring, or piling must be designed and installed in accordance with appropriate professional standards and the relevant requirements of the Building Code of Australia and Australian Standards. Details of proposed retaining walls, shoring or piling are to be submitted to and approved by the Principal Certifying Authority for the development prior to commencing such excavations or works.

Permitted Working Hours

24. 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 or the like	· Monday to Friday - 8.00am to 5.00pm · Saturday - No work permitted · Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted
Internal work only within a commercial or industrial development, located in a commercial or industrial zone, which is not audible within any residential dwelling or commercial or industrial premises	· Monday to Saturday - No time limits (subject to column 1) · Sunday & public holidays - No work permitted
Additional requirements for all development (except for single residential dwellings)	· Saturdays and Sundays where the preceding Friday and/or the following Monday is a public holiday - No work permitted

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

Construction Site Management

25. Public health, safety and convenience must be maintained at all times during demolition and building works and the following requirements must be complied with at all times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of the proposed sediment control measures are to be detailed in the site management plan which must be submitted to the Principal Certifying Authority and Council prior to the commencement of any site works. The sediment and erosion control measures must be implemented prior to the commencement of any site works and be maintained throughout construction. A copy of the plan is to be maintained on-site and be made available to Council officers upon request.

f) Public safety must be maintained at all times and public access to any demolition and building works, materials and equipment on the site is to be restricted. If necessary, a temporary safety fence or hoarding (having a minimum height of 1.5m) is to be provided to protect the public. Temporary site fences are to be structurally adequate, safe and be constructed in a professional manner and the use of poor quality materials or steel reinforcement mesh as fencing is not permissible. If necessary, an overhead (B Class type) hoarding may be required to protect the public or occupants of the adjoining premises from falling articles or materials.

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

g) Adequate provisions must be made to ensure pedestrian safety and traffic flow during the site works and traffic control measures are to be implemented in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Roads and Traffic Manual “Traffic Control at Work Sites” (Version 4), to the satisfaction of Council.

h) A Road / Asset Opening application must be submitted to and be approved by 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.

All works within or upon the road reserve, footpath, nature strip or other public place are to be completed to the satisfaction of Council, prior to the issuing of an 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.

26. A report, prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics, shall be submitted to the Council prior to an occupation certificate being issued for the development, which demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW EPA Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, Council’s conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations), to the satisfaction of Council. The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources.

27. The food premises must be registered with Council's Health, Building & Regulatory Services department and inspected by Council’s Environmental Health Officer in accordance with the Food Act 2003, prior to commencement of any food preparation and service.

Occupation Certificate Requirements

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

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

Fire Safety Certificate Requirements

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

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

Noise Emissions - Certification

30. Where plant and equipment is installed in the premises (e.g. air-conditioners, mechanical ventilation/exhaust systems or refrigeration motors etc), a written report or statement must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics.

The report/statement must demonstrate and confirm that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy, Council’s conditions of consent (including any relevant approved acoustic report and recommendations), to the satisfaction of Council. The assessment and report must include all relevant fixed and operational noise sources and a copy of the report/statement must be provided to Council prior to the issue of an occupation certificate.

Council’s Infrastructure, Vehicular Crossings, street verge

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

a) Construct new concrete vehicle crossing opposite the vehicle entrance to the site

b) Install signage for a timed pickup and drop-off zone along the site frontage on Duncan street strictly in accordance with the approval by Randwick Traffic Committee (at its March 2017 meeting).

32. 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 (including street trees), 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.

33. 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 "Crossings and Entrances – Contributions Policy” and “Residents’ Requests for Special Verge Crossings Policy” and the following requirements:

a) Details of the proposed civil works to be carried out on Council land must be submitted to Council in a Civil Works Application Form. Council will respond, typically within 4 weeks, with a letter of approval outlining conditions for working on Council land, associated fees and workmanship bonds. Council will also provide details of the approved works including specifications and construction details.

b) Works on Council land, must not commence until the written letter of approval has been obtained from Council and heavy construction works within the property are complete. The work must be carried out in accordance with the conditions of development consent, Council’s conditions for working on Council land, design details and payment of the fees and bonds outlined in the letter of approval.

c) The civil works must be completed in accordance with the above, prior to the issuing of an occupation certificate for the development, or as otherwise approved by Council in writing.

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

Bicycle Parking

35. Bike storage facilities shall be provided on the site at suitable location large enough to accommodate a minimum of 2 bicycle spaces in accordance with AS 2890.3.

Travel Plan

36. The Plan of Management of the childcare centre shall include a Workplace Travel Plan which endeavours to minimise the parking and traffic generation of the proposed development; The plan may include but not be limited to aspects such as support for walking and cycling, car sharing, management of workplace parking spaces, & incentives for public transport use.

The Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved by Council’s Department of integrated Transport prior to issuing of an occupation certificate.

Landscape & Playspace Certification

37. Prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate, certification must be provided confirming the date the site was inspected, and that both the landscaping (planting) and play-space have been completed and installed in accordance with the approved plans and relevant conditions of consent and Australian Standards.

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.

38. The use and operation of the child care centre is to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements as outlined in the noise assessment submitted with the application namely “Yogicubs at 27 Duncan St, Maroubra. Report No. 16126 Version D. Dated December 2016” prepared by Wilkinson Murray (our reference D02838844).

39. The hours of the operation of the child care centre are restricted to:-

· Monday through to Friday, inclusive from: 7.00am to 6.00pm

· No operations permitted on weekends and public holidays

40. The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance.

41. There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises which give rise to a public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

42. The premises is to be designed, constructed and operated in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2010, Australia & New Zealand Food Standards Code and Australian Standard AS 4674-2004, Design, construction and fit-out of food premises.

43. Food safety practices and operation of the food premises must be in accordance with the Food Act 2003, Food Regulation 2010, Food Standards Code and Food Safety Standards at all times, including the requirements and provisions relating to:

· Food handling – skills, knowledge and controls.

· Health and hygiene requirements.

· Requirements for food handlers and businesses.

· Cleaning, sanitising and maintenance.

· Design and construction of food premises, fixtures, fitting and equipment.

A failure to comply with the relevant food safety requirements is an offence and may result in legal proceedings, service of notices and/or the issuing of on-the-spot penalty infringement notices.

Fire Safety Statements

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

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

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

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

45. A validation report must be obtained from a suitably qualified and experienced consultant in acoustics three (3) months after the business commences trading. The report should demonstrates and certifies that noise and vibration from the development satisfies the relevant provisions of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997, NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Noise Control Manual & Industrial Noise Policy and conditions of Council’s development consent.

The report is to be forwarded to and approved by Council. This report must address (but not limited to) the accumulation effect of mechanical plant and equipment and noise generated from all children in the outdoor play area. Any recommendations outlined in the acoustic report are to be implemented in accordance with the report.

Environmental Amenity

46. The use and operation of the premises shall not give rise to an environmental health or public nuisance, cause a vibration nuisance or, result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

47. The proposed use and operation of the premises (including all plant and equipment) must 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 premises and plant and equipment shall not give rise to a sound pressure level at any affected premises that exceeds the background (L_A90), _{15 min} noise level, measured in the absence of the noise source/s under consideration by more than 5dB(A). The source noise level shall be assessed as an L_Aeq, _{15 min} and adjusted in accordance with the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage/Environment Protection Authority Industrial Noise Policy 2000 and Environmental Noise Control Manual (sleep disturbance).

Waste Management

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

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

The operator of the business must also arrange for the recycling of appropriate materials and make the necessary arrangements with an authorised waste services contractor accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

A4 This determination does not include an assessment of the proposed works under the Building Code of Australia (BCA), Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 and other relevant Standards. All new building work (including alterations and additions) must comply with the BCA and relevant Standards. You are advised to liaise with your architect, engineer and building consultant prior to lodgement of your construction certificate.

A5 The assessment of this development application does not include an assessment of the proposed building work under the Food Act 2003, Food Safety Standards or Building Code of Australia (BCA).

All new building work must comply with relevant regulatory requirements and Australian Standards and details of compliance are to be provided in the construction certificate application.

A6 The design and construction of the premises must satisfy the requirements of the Food Act 2003, Food Standards Code and AS 4674 (2004). Prior to finalising the design and fit-out for the development and prior to a construction certificate being obtained, advice should be obtained from an accredited Food Safety Consultant (or Council’s Environmental Health Officer).

A7 The applicant and operator are also advised to engage the services of a suitably qualified and experienced Acoustic consultant, prior to finalising the design and construction of the development, to ensure that the relevant noise criteria and conditions of consent can be fully satisfied.

A8 Any proposed amendments to the design and construction of the building may require a new development application or a section 96 amendment to the existing consent to be obtained from Council, before carrying out such works

A9 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).

A10 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.

A11 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 in a public place.

For further information please contact Council on 9399 0944.

A12 There are to be no emissions or discharges from the premises, which will give rise to an environmental or public nuisance or result in an offence under the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and Regulations.

A13 In existing buildings, where necessary, the levels of fire and occupant safety should be upgraded and details should be incorporated in the Construction Certificate to the satisfaction of the Certifying authority.

Building owners, applicants and builders are advised to liaise with the appointed Certifying Authority prior to lodgement of the Construction Certificate.

A14 A separate development application and construction certificate or a complying development certificate (as applicable) must be obtained if the premises is to be used for any of the purposes detailed below:

· All food businesses (including premises used for the sale, storage, preparation and distribution of food and drinks)

· Hairdressing salons, Beauty salons, Businesses involving Skin Penetration & Piercing, Massage businesses

· Licensed premises, places of public entertainment and hotels

· Places of Shared Accommodation (including Boarding / Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast businesses, Backpackers, Residential Hotels or the like

· Cooling Towers or Warm Water Systems

· External plant and equipment which is not encompassed in the development consent

· Business providing any form of sexual service (i.e. brothel or the like).

Business premises which are used for any of these purposes must comply with relevant public health and safety legislation and requirements and they must be registered with Council prior to an Occupation Certificate being issued for the development. The relevant registration and inspection fee is also required to be paid to Council in accordance with Council’s adopted Pricing Policy.

A15 The applicant/owner is advised to engage the services of a suitably qualified and experienced Acoustic consultant, prior to finalising the design and construction of the development, to ensure that the relevant noise criteria and conditions of consent can be fully satisfied.

A16 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). 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.

A17 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.

A18 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 the application be refused.”

Community Facility	Lettable area (m2)	Estimated capacity	Mon-Fri 8am-9pm (Ex. GST)	Sat-Sun & Public Holiday 8am-9pm (Ex. GST)
Kensington Community Centre – Hall 1	134	130	$70	$80
Kensington Community Centre – Hall 2	100	100	$60	$70

Community Facility	Lettable area (m2)	Estimated capacity	Mon-Fri 8am-9pm (Ex. GST)	Sat-Sun & Public Holiday 8am-9pm (Ex. GST)
Kensington Community Centre – Hall 1	134	130	$49	$56
Kensington Community Centre – Hall 2	100	100	$42	$49