RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

  BUSINESS PAPER

 

 

 

Tuesday 9 May 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Administrative Centre 30 Frances Street Randwick 2031

Telephone: 1300 722 542

Fax: 02 9319 1510

 council@randwick.nsw.gov.au

www.randwick.nsw.gov.au


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                               9 May 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

Planning Committee Meeting

 

Notice is hereby given that a Planning Committee Meeting of the Council of the City of Randwick will be held in the Council Chamber, First Floor, 90 Avoca Street Randwick on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

 

 

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

 

Quorum:                             Eight (8) members

 

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

Apologies/Granting of Leave of Absences 

Confirmation of the Minutes  

Planning Committee Meeting - 11 April 2017

Declarations of Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Interests

Address of Committee by Members of the Public

Privacy warning;

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

Urgent Business

Development Application Reports (record of voting required)

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

D38/17     286A Rainbow Street, Coogee (DA/883/2016)........................................... 1

D39/17     1 Coogee Street, Randwick (DA/555/2016)............................................. 15

D40/17     34 Milford Street, Randwick (DA/505/2014/B)........................................ 59

D41/17     27 Duncan Street, Maroubra (DA/234/2016)........................................... 69

 

Miscellaneous Reports

Nil    

Notice of Rescission Motions

Nil  

 

 

 

 

…………………………………………………….

Ray Brownlee

General Manager


Planning Committee                                                                                                               9 May 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D38/17

 

Subject:              286A Rainbow Street, Coogee (DA/883/2016)

Folder No:                DA/883/2016

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

 

Proposal:                  Alterations and additions to the existing dwelling including new first floor

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                Mr A Nicholls

Owner:                     Ms M A Kvello & Mr J A Lotherington

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=04dbf2d0-6c3a-483b-bcbe-00a062de4774&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application was assessed by an external planning consultant and is referred to Planning Committee for determination as a Randwick City Councillor is a neigbouring property owner.

 

Proposal

 

The proposal seeks to carry out alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling, including the provision of an upper level addition.

 

Specifically, the proposal seeks the following alterations and additions:

 

Ground Floor:

§ Enclose the existing central outdoor patio

§ Construction of new internal laundry

§ Demolish existing shed

§ New stairs at the southern frontage, providing access to the new upper level

 

First Floor:

§ 1 main bedroom and ensuite

§ 2 bedrooms

§ Bathroom

§ Void over enclosed courtyard

 

The proposed alterations and additions will allow for a 2 storey semi-detached dwelling, containing ground floor living / dining / kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms, with an additional 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms at the upper level.

 

Amended plans, dated March 2017, were submitted during the assessment process which result in the deletion of the upper level north facing balcony whilst increasing the rear setback to achieve a consistent building line with the rear pergola of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling to the east at 286 Rainbow Street.

 

Site

 

The subject site is located at 286A Rainbow Street and is formally described as Lot 2 in DP444886. The subject site has a 5.12m frontage to Rainbow Street in the south, extending for a depth of approximately 50m to form a total site area of 284.5m2.

 

The subject site forms part of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, with the adjoining pair being 286 Rainbow Street, situated on the eastern side of the subject site.

 

When viewed from a streetscape perspective, the pair as symmetrical in appearance. The adjoining eastern neighbour at 286 Rainbow Street has been subject to alterations and additions, which provide for an upper level that extends from behind the front ridge line. The eastern neighbouring semi is on a wider allotment than the subject site whilst the common boundary is also irregular in nature. The eastern neighbour has its entry from the front whilst the subject site has its entrance on its western side. It appears that the semi-detached dwellings were once a single dwelling house, as shown in Figure 1 below.

 

At present, the subject site contains a single storey semi-detached dwelling with an landscaped rear yard, which is situated approximately 2.5m above the floor level of the dwelling.

 

The subject site slopes from the northern boundary (RL47.8) to the southern / Rainbow Street frontage (RL42.78) by 5.02m.

 

The site does not contain any significant landscape features nor is it identified as a heritage item.

 

Figure 1: Subject site and adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 286 Rainbow Street

 

Figure 2: Existing central courtyard, to be enclosed

 

Figure 3: Rear of subject site, as viewed from the rear landscaped yard which is situated approximately 2.5m higher than the ground floor level

 

Surrounding sites

 

To the north of the subject site are properties addressed to Oberon Street

 

Figure 4: Rear of subject site, demonstrating the extensive screening and contiguous deep soil zone, located within the rear of the subject site and northern neighbour

 

Figure 5: Rear of subject site, demonstrating the extensive screening and contiguous deep soil zone, located within the rear of the subject site and northern neighbour

 

To the east of the subject site, is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, at 286 Rainbow Street, Coogee.

 

Figure 6: Eastern neighbour, as viewed from Rainbow Street

 

Figure 7: Rear of the 1st floor addition eastern neighbour, as viewed from the rear yard of the subject site

 

To the west of the subject site, at 284 Rainbow Street, is a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The western most semi-detached dwelling has been modified to include a second storey addition whilst the immediately adjoining semi-detached dwelling has been retained as a single storey residence.

 

Figure 8: Western neighbours at 282 and 284 Rainbow Street

 

Southern neighbours, located on the southern side of Rainbow Street, comprise a mix of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses.

 

Figure 9: Southern neighbours as viewed from the subject site

 

Submissions

 

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

§ 286 Rainbow Street, Coogee

 

Issues

Details

Assessor’s Comments

Wall height

The subject site is not classified as unreasonably ‘steep’ and therefore a 7m wall height should comply.

The proposed development complies with the Randwick LEP 2012 height limit of 9.5m.

 

The proposed plans, as amended, indicated a wall height line of 6.4m.

 

Whilst it is considered that the subject site would be classified as a steeply sloping site given that the site declines by approximately 5m from the northern / rear boundary to the southern / front boundary, the proposal remains compliant with the 7m wall height control.

 

The proposed wall height and overall height are permissible under the Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013.

 

Refer to key issues section of the report.

FSR

The proposed development exceeds the allowable FSR of 0.6:1.

The subject allotment has a site area of 284.5m2.

 

Pursuant to Clause 4.4 (2B) of the Randwick LEP 2012, there is no floor space ratio applicable to semi-detached dwellings on lots less than 300m2.

 

The proposed floor space of 0.65:1 is considered to be appropriate on the subject site, given that the proposal complies with the other relevant building envelope controls, including overall height, wall height, setbacks, site coverage, landscaping and private open space.

 

The proposed FSR also does not generate any unreasonable streetscape, shadow, privacy or view impacts.

Privacy

The proximity of the rear first floor balcony raises concerns of privacy and overlooking.

The applicant has submitted amended plans which delete the upper level balcony. A condition has also been imposed requiring that the external louvres be directed outwards to avoid overlooking to the eastern and western side boundaries.

Rear setback

The first floor addition extends past the current rear average alignment of existing properties.

The proposed 15.11m setback is well beyond the 8m setback required by the DCP. Furthermore, the subject site has a width ranging between 5m – 6m which is narrower than the predominant lot width, therefore increasing the depth of the dwelling.

 

It is also noted that the proposed upper level addition does not extend past the existing rear setback of the ground floor of the existing dwelling.

 

It is also noted that whilst the upper level protrudes beyond the first floor addition of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, the proposal, as amended, aligns with the covered pergola and, therefore, does not extend beyond that of 286 Rainbow Street. 

 

Refer to key issues section of the report.

Construction concerns

Any works will need to be wholly within the property line of 286A Rainbow Street.

 

Extension of the common party will have a direct negative impact upon the adjoining semi.

Appropriate conditions of consent will be imposed to ensure that any construction work to the common wall will not negatively impose upon the other semi-detached dwelling.

 

A construction management plan will be required to be submitted prior to the commencement of any works.

 

Key Issues

 

Floor Space Ratio

Pursuant to clause 4.4 (2B) of the Randwick LEP 2012, semi-detached dwellings that are situated on allotments with a site area of less than 300m2 are not encumbered to a specified floor space ratio control, but much rather are subject to a merit assessment.  If the lot was above 300m2, an FSR of 0.75:1 would apply. The proposed FSR of 0.65:1 is therefore considered reasonable given the smaller lot size.

 

The subject site comprises a total site area of 284.5m2 and therefore a merit assessment must be carried out in determining the appropriateness of the floor space ratio.

 

An assessment of the application against the remaining building envelope controls, i.e. height, wall height, site coverage, setbacks, private open space and landscaping, demonstrates that the proposal exhibits a high degree of compliance.

 

In this regard, the proposal complies with the overall height (7.6m proposed) and wall height controls (6.4m proposed) whilst also complying with the side and rear setback controls and the allowable site coverage.

 

Overall, the high degree of compliance with the remaining Randwick LEP 2012 and Randwick DCP 2013 controls and the reasonable degree of external amenity impacts in regards to overshadowing, privacy and visual bulk, is confirmation that the proposed FSR is reasonable and appropriate in this instance.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposal represents a reasonable development outcome and as such, the FSR is supported on the subject site.

 

Wall height

The subject site declines by approximately 5m from the northern / rear boundary (RL47.8) to the southern / front boundary (RL42.78), where it intercepts with Rainbow Street. Whilst the site is identified as a sloping site, the portion of the allotment where the alterations and additions are proposed, is generally flat and therefore a 7m wall height control would apply.

 

The proposed works include the provision of a second storey addition, with three timber framed skillion roof sections of varying height. In accordance with the measurement for external wall height, as illustrated in the excerpt below (section 3.2, Randwick DCP 2013), the external wall height is to be measured from the underside of the lower end of the roof:

 

Figure 10: Measurement of external wall height

 

Figure 11: Western elevation demonstrating the proposed wall height and its calculation and design is consistent with that anticipated by the DCP

 

As demonstrated above, the proposed alterations and additions result in a maximum wall height of 6.4m which is 600mm below that permit on the subject site.

 

Furthermore, the above elevation demonstrates that the proposal, having a maximum height of 7.6m, is well below the maximum permissible height of 9.5m, as per the Randwick LEP 2012.

Compliance with the above demonstrates that the proposed development is of a bulk and scale that is appropriate for the subject site and surrounding context, noting that the proposal maintains the existing ridge height, with the exception of the skillion roof components.

 

The 2 storey nature of the proposal is also consistent with numerous other semi-detached dwellings along this portion of Rainbow Street.

 

It is therefore considered that the proposed wall height and overall height of the built form is appropriate.

 

 

Rear setback

In accordance with the Randwick DCP 2013, the proposed development is required to provide a minimum rear setback of 8m or 25% of the allotment depth, whichever is the lesser.

 

Given the allotment has a depth of 50m, a rear setback requirement of 8m would apply to the subject site, having regard to the following matters:

·     Existing predominant rear setback line in the subject urban block

·     The need to achieve reasonable view sharing with the neighbouring dwellings and the public domain

·     The need to adequately protect the privacy and solar access to the neighbouring dwellings.

 

The proposed development includes a rear setback of 15.1m, which is 2.1m greater than the rear setback of the existing ground floor level and almost double that required by the DCP.

 

It is noted that the existing semi-detached dwelling extends beyond the predominant rear setback line, which is considered to be exacerbated by the dimensions of the allotment, which include a narrow and elongated site (approximately 5.12m x 50m).

 

The original proposal included a rear setback of 13.9m, with a 1.5m deep north facing balcony that protruding into the rear setback.

 

The proposed development has since been amended to achieve a rear setback of 15.1m which now aligns with the rear setback of the property to the immediate east. Importantly, the upper level north facing balcony has been deleted which limits the potential for overlooking to the private open space of the eastern and western properties.

 

As illustrated below, the proposed rear setback is considered to be generally consistent with the predominant rear setback alignment of the subject urban block:

 

Figure 12: Proposed alterations and additions with regard to the rear setback line

 

The majority of the adjoining sites are under-developed and it would therefore be unreasonable to require a greater 1st floor rear setback given it is almost double that required and is not responsible for any unreasonable shadow or privacy impacts.

 

The north – south orientation of the allotment ensures that a reasonable degree of solar access is maintained to the eastern and western neighbouring properties, with the eastern neighbour remaining unaffected by the proposed works between 8am – 2pm, with minor additional overshadowing to the rear private open space area occurring between 2pm – 4pm.

 

Similarly, the proposal will result in additional overshadowing to the eastern windows of the western neighbour between 8am – 11am, however solar access to the private open space area and the north facing windows of the western neighbour remain unaffected by the proposed alterations and additions.

 

It is acknowledged that the first floor contains a central void area which contributes to the length of the 1st floor addition, however given the long and narrow north – south orientation of the site, the void is effective in providing daylight and ventilation to the central component of the living area, thereby increasing the amenity to the ground floor living space.

 

The living area below the void is also compromised by the close proximity of the western neighbour which further justifies the void at the first floor.

 

It is also noted that the adjoining property to the east is under-developed, being well below the 0.75:1FSR permitted on the site. It is therefore considered that any potential first floor addition could reasonable extend northwards to match that proposed.

 

It is therefore demonstrated that the proposed development complies with section C2, sub-section 3.3.3 rear setbacks, of the Randwick DCP 2013 and that the rear setback is appropriate for the subject site.

 

Semi-detached dwelling design considerations

The front alignment matches the existing semi-detached dwelling to the east whilst the contemporary façade is also compatible with other semi-detached dwellings, which have undergone alterations. The 2 storey scale is also consistent with other semi-detached dwellings and detached dwellings within the immediate streetscape. 

 

The proposed first floor addition is setback beyond the apex of the roof, with the proposal maintaining the existing ridge height albeit the skillion roof features.

 

Whilst it is noted that the proposal does not use a low roof profile, the provision of a skillion roof with clerestory windows results in a more desirable outcome and significantly improves the internal amenity which is constrained by the narrow and elongated nature of the subject site.

 

It is not considered that the party wall will be visible to the public domain. The party wall will be constructed with a flush struck face brick to provide for visual interest from surrounding dwellings.

 

Overall the proposed alterations and additions are considered to be appropriate for the semi-detached dwelling and will not adversely impact upon any future redevelopment of the eastern adjoining semi-detached dwelling.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing semi-detached dwelling comply with the relevant assessment criteria, as outlined in s79C of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The proposal also complies with the development standards contained with the Randwick LEP 2012 and achieves the objectives and / or provisions of the Randwick DCP 2013, as they apply to the subject site and proposed use.

 

The proposal significantly improves upon the livability and functionality of the existing single storey, 2 bedroom semi-detached dwelling.

 

Overall, the appearance of the semi-detached dwelling is consistent with other modern semi-detached and detached dwellings in the area, which also include skillion roof forms to maximise solar access and ventilation, particularly on these elongated sites.

 

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

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants development consent under Sections 80 and 80A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to Development Application No. DA/883/2016 for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling, including a new first floor addition, at No. 286A Rainbow Street, Coogee, subject to the following non standard conditions and the standard conditions contained in the development application compliance report attached to this report:

 

Non standard conditions

 

Amendment of Plans & Documentation

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

 

a.      A construction management plan is to be provided to Council prior to the issue of a Construction Certificate. Details are to be provided in relation to the maintenance of the dividing wall and waterproofing of the roof which extends between the subject site and the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at 286 Rainbow Street. Such details are to be to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority

b.      Fixed, external louvres facing northwards are to be provided off the main bedroom on the first floor to minimise any direct overlooking to the east and west.

 

Attachment/s:

 

1.

DA Compliance Report - 286A Rainbow Street, COOGEE

Included under separate cover

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                               9 May 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D39/17

 

Subject:              1 Coogee Street, Randwick (DA/555/2016)

Folder No:                DA/555/2016

Author:                     Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Demolition of the existing structures, construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 8 apartments, 10 car spaces and rooftop terraces (variation to height of buildings)

Ward:                        North Ward

Applicant:                Mr S Raissis

Owner:                     Mr S Raissis Ms A Raissis Mr E Raissis

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The application is referred to the Planning Committee as a part of the proposed development exceeds by more than 10% the 9.5m maximum heights of buildings development standard in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

 

Proposal

 

Demolition of the existing structures, construction of a new part two part three storey residential flat building comprising 8 single bedroom apartments (four on each of the top two levels), 10 car spaces in a semi basement carpark and rooftop terraces for the first floor level units. The application is accompanied by a Clause 4.6 variation to height of buildings standard in the RLEP 2012.

 

Amended plans:

The applicant submitted amended plans received by Council on 1 December 2016 which include:

 

·     Increased northern rear setback which is also the side boundary of the property located at No. 7B Judge Street which contains a part three/part four storey walk up flat building;

·     Reduction in the southern front setback facing Coogee Street;

·     Reconfiguration of front and rear balconies more to the front and rear.

 

The amended plans have an FSR of 0.748:1. The amended development has a lower building height although the 9.5m maximum standard in the RLEP 2012 continues to be exceeded at the southern elevation adjacent to the roof terrace pergola attains a height of 10.535m above the adjacent ground level (RL35.715).  The applicant submitted an amended Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard contained in Clause 4.3 of the RLEP relating to height of buildings.

 

The amended plans were re-notified to surrounding residential properties from 6 December 2016 to 20 December 2016. Additional submissions were received all of which are addressed together with the submissions received in relation to the original notification.

 

The applicant submitted a further amended plan which was received by Council on 24 March 2017 showing a privacy screen at the rear of the roof terrace for apartment 7. This was not required to be notified as following a review of the impacts on views it was not considered that the roof terraces at the rear of the development would result in an unreasonable impact on views from No. 32 and No. 34 Milford Street.

 

Site

 

The site is located on the north eastern corner of Coogee Street and Judge Street as shown in the aerial photo below. The site has an area of 558.9sqm with a eastern side boundary depth of 40.235m and a rear width of 13.715m. The topology of the site varies, rising from the lower level at the front along Coogee Street up to the rear along Judge Street. The sloping land levels across the sites side boundaries and front to rear have gradients of 15.2% and 14.7% respectively whereby a gradient above 10% is considered to be steeply sloping. The steep gradients of the site are characteristic of the natural topography of land in the surrounding area as shown in various photos below. These photos show the subject site from Coogee Street and Judge Street and other properties showing on grade parking off Street level with habitable living areas elevated above street level.  In relation to the street level, the subject site sits above street level facing Coogee Street by around 1.3m and moving towards the rear the site sits below the Judge Street level by around 750mm.

 

 

 

 

Aerial photo of subject site and surrounding area: Land falls from east to west and from north to south.

 

Photo 1: Subject site facing Coogee Street. Judge Street is at left

 

 

Photo 2: Western side of the subject site running along Judge Street the secondary street frontage. Note: The subject dwelling sits below the Judge Street level as shown by the eaves being only marginally above the height of the side boundary fencing.

 

Neighbouring properties:

 

The site adjoins two neighbouring properties at No. 3 Coogee Street to the eastern side and No. 7B Judge Street to the rear northern side. No. 3 Coogee Street also sits below the subject site and contains a single dwelling. No. 7B Judge Street sits above the subject site and contains a part three/part four storey walk up flat building. The three adjacent corners as shown in the aerial photo above include No. 34 Milford Street (at the north western corner) which has received Council approval for a part three part four storey flat building; No. 4 Judge Street containing a single dwelling and No. 2 Albi Place containing a three storey walk up flat building that is set well below street level.

 

Photo 3: A view looking towards the subject site showing the variance in land levels along the eastern side boundary shared with No. 3 Coogee Street at left of photo. It is noted that the proposed floor level of the garage is between 1.7m and 2m below the subject sites existing ground level (GL).

 

Photo 4: No. 34 Milford Street. Development approved for a three storey flat building on the subject site.  No. 32 Milford Street sits behind.

 

Photo 5: No. 4 Judge Street: single dwelling that sits well above the level of Judge Street.

 

Photo 6: No. 2 Albi Place: Three storey walk up flat building that sits well below the level of Coogee Street.

 

Photo 7: No 7B Judge Street: Located at the rear boundary of the subject site.

 

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to a Development Standard

 

Clause 4.3 (2) – Height of buildings

Clause 4.3(2) in the RLEP states the maximum building height of a building for the site as shown on Height of Buildings Map is not to exceed a maximum height of 9.5m. The proposed height of the building varies between 6.685m and 10.535m exceeding the standard at the low points of the site at the southern end fronting Coogee Street.

 

The variations to building height standard are between 5.05% and 10.89% at the south western and southern eastern corner of the site as summarised in the table below and shown in figures . Following are plan excerpts of the elevations showing these heights:

 

Table 2: Variation to the height standard - Clause 4.3(2) of the RLEP 2012

 

Height

Development Standard

9.5m

Proposal

Southern elevation of the pergola roof 9.98m (at south western) – 10.535m (at south eastern)

Excess above RLEP Standard

South western corner: 5.05%

South eastern corner: 10.89%

 

 

Figure 1: Southern elevation of the proposed development. Between 9.98m and 10.535m height interpolated from the levels within the site.

 

Figure 2: Western elevation of the proposed development. 6.685m height interpolated from street level. Note; the height of the building along the eastern elevation (except for the south eastern corner complies with the maximum under the RLEP 2012.

 

Clause 4.6 Exception to the development standard for height

The applicant has submitted a written request seeking to justify the contravention of the maximum height of building standard contained in clause 4.3(2A) of RLEP 2012, pursuant to Clause 4.6 of RLEP 2012.

 

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

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

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

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

 

Further, the consent authority must be satisfied that:

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

In the Wehbe case Justice Preston said the most commonly invoked way to establish that compliance with a development standard is unreasonable or unnecessary is to demonstrate that the objectives of the development standard are achieved notwithstanding non-compliance with the standard.

 

The objectives of the height of buildings standard are set out in clause 4.3 (2A) of RLEP 2012 as follows:

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

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

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

 

The applicant has provided the following arguments in support of the Clause 4.6 exception:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment of the Clause 4.6 criteria:

 

Despite the proposed development exceeding the maximum overall height of buildings standard in the RLEP it is considered that the applicant’s arguments contain substantive planning merit and will satisfy the objectives of the standard and the R3 Medium Density Residential zone for the following reasons:

 

·     The non-compliant overall height of the building is limited to the south eastern and south western parts of the development over localised low points of the site. These non-compliant elements are limited to light weight roof elements associated with the roof terraces which do not pose any significant massing when viewed from the street and surrounding properties. The majority of the development complies with the 9.5m maximum overall height standard in the RLEP 2012.

·     When viewed from the Judge Street frontage, the building presents as two storeys with light weight roof element above.

·     The proposed development exceeds the 8m maximum external wall height control along the southern and eastern elevation as viewed from Coogee Street and the neighbouring property at No. 3 Coogee Street, however these parts of the site are the low points and the degree to which it exceeds the maximum is minor. Moreover, the massing and visual bulk is minimised by incorporating the following building design elements:

The parking level above ground level is generally an open type structure.

The external walls at the upper level and along these elevations are setback around 3m from the eastern side boundary which is 1m greater than the 2m minimum required for the site under the RDCP.

·     The proposal complies with the FSR standard which is indicative of envisaged bulk and scale appropriate for the site; whilst the distribution of floor area and site coverage results in a non-compliant secondary street side setback and a minor shortfall in landscaping, it is considered that the proposed distribution of floor area provides a better planning outcome than a compliant development in that it allows for greater side setbacks from the eastern side boundary. In addition, articulation through split stepped sections of walls across all elevations provide a lightweight architectural form

·     Where there are privacy concerns, such as with the eastern side balconies being located in the middle of the development, an appropriate condition is included requiring them to be deleted and the doorways to bedrooms be replaced with windows with sill heights of 1.2m

·     The proposed development at the non-compliant building heights will not result in any significant loss of views as demonstrated by the view analysis submitted with the application. Site visits to neighbouring properties undertaken by the assessing officer confirm this. In the amended plans showing an increased rear setback further ensures impacts in this regard are acceptable. Please see view loss assessment section in this report relating to the rear roof terrace areas.

·     The north south configuration of the site means that the eastern neighbour’s north facing windows and areas of private open space will not be unreasonably impacted by the proposed development;

 

The proposed development has been designed with sufficient stepped in elements to reduce both the impacts on the streetscape and the neighbouring properties. In particular, reference is made to the fact that the majority of the building falls below the overall height of building standard in the RLEP as shown in the elevation plans for the eastern and western sides of the development.

 

There are also developments in the area that already exceed the maximum overall height standard with particular reference to the part three part four storey walk up flat buildings at No. 7B Judge Street and others on the opposite side of the street.

 

Reference is also made to the compatibility between the building and its surroundings by referencing the two tests under Project venture Developments v Pittwater Council [2005] NSWLEC 191:

 

1.  Are the proposals physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable and

2.  Is the proposed appearance in harmony with buildings around it and the character of the street

 

1.     Are the proposals physical impacts on surrounding development acceptable?

 

Views

In relation to the physical impacts the applicant has provided a view loss analysis from the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street (yet to be constructed); No. 32 Milford Street and No. 4 Judge Street. Whilst the amendments shift the development closer to the front boundary this has the effect of reducing the view loss impacts across the rear of the site from No. 34 Milford Street. The non-compliant overall heights at the front of the development will not result in loss of views from the abovementioned properties.

 

Privacy

As indicated in the key issues section of this report, the proposed development as amended and conditioned will suitably minimise the visual and acoustic privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties.

 

Overshadowing

The site is located at north-eastern corner of Coogee Street and Judge Street and configured on a north-south axis which means that the proposed development will predominately cast shadows over Judge and Coogee Street from 8am to 2pm during the winter solstice. In respect to the height of the building standard, it is noted that the additional shadowing to the western neighbour’s property is not a result of building heights as the rear part of the development has a maximum height of 9.14m set well away from this boundary and a 7.02m wall height above existing ground level which are well below the maximum s in the RLEP and the RDCP respectively.

 

Further discussion of overshadowing is contained in the key issues section of this report.

 

2.     Is the proposal appearance in harmony with buildings around it and the character of the street?

 

The proposed development is contemporary in design and similar to more recent developments in the Coogee Basin area with particular reference to the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street.

 

The development has a two storey built form when viewed from the long western side elevation along Judge Street which is consistent with the built form envisaged by the 9.5m height standard.

 

The short secondary street setback from the Judge Street boundary varies between 400mm and 1.2m which is short of the sizable front setback provided at No. 7B Judge Street and No 2 Albi Place. However, despite this, the proposed development has a secondary street setback which is considered to satisfy the objectives in the RDCP for secondary street setbacks for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed 1.2m set backs are generally consistent with the approved siting of the development at No. 34 Milford Street which is 1.1m from the Judge Street secondary street boundary.

·     The subject site is located within Judge Street, a short street containing much larger buildings on neighbouring properties facing the Judge and Albi Street frontages which means that the development will not present obtrusively along these street frontages.

 

Overall it is considered that the applicant has provided sustainable planning arguments indicating that the proposal will satisfy the objectives of the Height of Buildings development standard and the R3 Medium Density residential zone in the RLEP 2012. The variation to the building height standard occurs amongst light weight elements of the building form. Whilst parts of the development contain massing above that envisaged by the RDCP having regard to the external wall heights, the massing and impacts of these elements have been minimised through articulation and providing greater than minimum side setbacks opposite neighbouring property to the east at No. 3 Coogee Street.

 

The overall massing of walls associated with the development contains suitable levels of openings and articulation providing relief and visual interest when viewed from neighbouring properties and the two streetscapes of Coogee Street and Judge Street. The surrounding developments are of an older housing stock and show greater massing and scale; particularly adjoining at the rear and also opposite along Coogee Street. As well, the proposed built form will not be inconsistent with the recently approved development at the adjacent corner to the west at No. 34 Milford Street.

 

In addition to the above assessment of the Clause 4.6 exception to the building height standard reference is also made to the following matters:

 

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 RLEP:

 

The objectives of the building height clause read as follows:

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

 

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

 

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

 

Assessment:

The justification provided in the applicant’s written request has sufficient planning merit having regard to the objectives of the standard.

 

While observing the breach of the height limit, it is to be expected that where a site exhibits substantial slopes and variations in ground levels, there may be some resultant variation necessary to the height of the building. The most obvious elements of height variations and massing relate to the eastern side and southern front elevations where land levels are at their lowest.

 

This massing is evident when viewed from street level, however it is tempered by using lightweight roof structures and providing greater than minimum side setbacks from the eastern side boundary. All elevations contain suitable articulation and steps to ensure visual relief when viewed from neighbouring properties. With respect to compatibility, the proposed development’s height is not dissimilar to the bulk and scale of other built forms in the area. In most instances these are of an older housing stock and do not contain the level of openness and visual interest of the more contemporary built form of the proposed development.

 

In addition, the proposed development at its lower points that is along the southern front boundary and eastern side boundary contains a scale that is not inconsistent with the approved development at no. 34 Milford Street. In some instances, particularly along the eastern elevation the proposed development has a lesser scale and massing above natural ground level as shown in comparison in the two figures below.

 

Figure 3: Eastern elevation of No 34 Milford Street.

 

 

Figure 4: Eastern elevation of proposed development at No. 1 Coogee Street. The rear part of the development substantially complies with the 9.5m maximum height of buildings standard and the 8m maximum external wall height control/provision in the RDCP 2013.

 

Neighbour’s amenity

The other considerations include whether or not the additional height caused by the roof forms will result in a significant impact to the amenity of neighbouring properties in comparison to a compliant development.  In relation to neighbour’s amenity reference is made to whether there are reasonable levels of views, and visual privacy and solar access. The amended development is considered to have minimised visual bulk, loss of views and privacy intrusion into neighbouring properties. In addition appropriate conditions have also been included to further minimise the amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

In terms of views, the increased rear setback means a greater level of view retention from the east facing apartments in the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street.

 

In relation to privacy, proposed conditions are included to minimise privacy intrusion into the windows and rear yard of No. 3 Coogee Street.

 

In relation to overshadowing, the proposed development will result in additional shadowing to the eastern side boundary of No. 3 Coogee Street and their rear yard in the afternoon, however this is considered to be largely an unavoidable consequence of the topography falling from west to east. In addition, the orientation of the site and neighbouring properties and developments located within them such as the part three part four storey walk up flat building at No. 7B Judge Street is the most obvious reason for overshadowing to the rear yard of No. 3 Coogee Street rather than the development’s non-compliance with the height of buildings standard in the RLEP.

 

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

 

The Site is zoned R3 under RLEP 2012.  The proposed development for a ‘residential flat building’ is permissible with consent under the zone.

 

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

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

·     To 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.

 

Assessment:

The relevant objectives of the R3 zone are addressed as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed development provides additional housing stock in a medium density scale envisaged by the RLEP and the RDCP.

 

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

 

The proposed development provides 8 one bedroom units, which when considered in the context of the area which contains predominately single dwellings will provide variety of housing types in the area.

 

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

 

The existing streetscape and built form generally exhibits developments that sit above street level along the localised low points. A walk through the area shows that the sites along this stretch of Coogee Street and Milford Street which run in an east west direct generally sit above street level with habitable dwellings sitting above levels of parking in front or under.

 

The proposed development is consistent with this built form with particular reference made to the more recent approved development at No. 34 Milford Street.

 

It is also noted that this fall in land level from west to east is exhibited along the stretch of dwellings east of the site up to No. 7 Coogee Street as shown in the photo below.

 

Photo: Slope of land at the end of No. 7 Coogee Street.

 

The proposed development in this respect will contribute to the future character of the area.

 

·     To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The amenity of neighbouring properties will be reasonably protected. Where there are greater impacts such as overshadowing these are largely an unavoidable consequence of the orientation of the site and topography rather than as result of any non-compliant elements of the development which are located at the front of the site.

 

·     To encourage housing affordability.

 

The proposed development does not provide for affordable housing; however the provision of single bedroom units does ensure more affordable housing choice.

 

3.     Consistency with the State and Regional Planning Policies

 

Assessment:

The proposed development seeks development consent under the relevant environmental planning policies of the state and local government area. An assessment of these policies and standards has been carried out throughout this report and the accompanying Compliance report. The key issues have been identified and assessed as satisfactory in this report and the proposed development is considered to have achieved consistency with the state and regional planning policies.

 

4.     The variation for a better planning outcome

 

Assessment:

The design scheme maintains a scale that will fit comfortably within the subject allotment. The additional height does not compromise the streetscape character and the development will continue to comply with the building envelope controls with regards to side setbacks, landscaping and open space. As indicated above and where necessary in the key issues section of this report, the proposed development contains suitable levels of articulation and variation in building materials that will ensure that the variation to the building height standard will not contribute to any significant or unreasonable adverse environmental impacts to the neighbouring properties or within the streetscape. Overall, it is considered that the applicant’s justification seeking an exception to the height of building development standard suitably demonstrates that the proposed development does not result in any unreasonable impacts and will achieve a better planning outcome ensuring adequate access to areas of private open space and amenity for future occupants whilst also providing for a development that will fit in with the height of development on properties in the medium density zone.

 

5.     There are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the variation

 

The assessment carried out above in relation to the objectives of the building height standard and the zone demonstrates that there are sufficient environmental grounds to permit the building height variation.

 

6.     The Variation is within the Public Interest

 

Assessment:

The proposal promotes the objectives of the zone and the standard and will not result in any significant adverse environmental, social or economic impacts on the locality. As such the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Comments:

Pursuant to the notification of assumed concurrence under clause 4.6(4) (and the former clause 24(4)) of the Standard Instrument contained in Planning Circular PS 08–003 (dated 9 May 2008) the concurrence of the Department of Planning and Environment under clause 4.6(4)(b) of RLEP 2012 may be assumed to the granting of development consent to the development that contravenes the development standard for the maximum building height in clause 4.3(2A) of RLEP 2012.

 

Variation from the adherence to the numerical building height 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. Therefore strict adherence to the numerical standard will be unnecessary in this case for maintaining the low density housing form envisaged under the RLEP for the R3 zoned site in this locality as discussed in this report.

 

Submissions

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

 

·     3 Coogee Street

·     5 Coogee Street

·     32 Milford Street

·     34 Milford Street

·     6 Judge Street

·     7 Judge Street

·     8 Judge Street

·     10 Judge Street

·     Unit5/7B Judge Street

·     2 Albi Place

 

Issue

Comment

The plans, numbers and calculations are incorrect and try to disguise the true size and extent of non-compliance to standards and controls such as landscaping.

The application has been assessed against the standards, provisions (controls) and objectives of the relevant policies and guidelines and independent of the material provided by the applicant.

The bulk and scale of the development is considered to be suitable for the site and surrounding area.

The landscaping whilst short of the minimum control in the RDCP is considered to be strategically located around the perimeter and serves to minimise the visual impact of the development from the street frontages and the neighbouring properties.

Shifting the development 400mm further south will dominate the developments at No. 4, 6, 8, 10 Judge Street properties.

The front setback of the development is less than the properties immediately east of the site however it is considered to be generally consistent with the predominant front setback of development’s further east along Coogee Street.

Setbacks are predominately below the prescribed standards particularly along the western boundary.

The proposed side setbacks are the subject of merit assessment under the RDCP. It is also noted that the site is relatively shallow in width and requiring greater setbacks under the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) would unfairly restrict the orderly development of the site for the purposes of medium density housing. Medium density housing is considered to be an appropriate form of development for the subject site which is zoned R3 medium density residential. See also assessment of side setbacks in the key issues section of this report.

Traffic hazard associated with locating the carpark entry close to the corner of site.

Council’s development engineer considers the location of the parking entry is acceptable.

The height of the development is excessive.

The proposed development exceeds the maximum external wall height control however this is generally a consequence of the localised low points of the site. An assessment of the development’s height is contained in Clause 4.6 exception to the development standard and the key issues section of this report.

The proposed development will result in total loss of views from ground and first floor levels from no. 34 Milford Street.

Noted. In relation to ground level, it is considered that for views to be retained from the ground level of No. 34 Milford Street the development would be restricted to a size and scale that would not be consistent with the desired future character. In relation to the views from first floor level, it is considered that deletion of the rear roof terraces and associated structures will ensure a fair sharing of views.

The proposed roof terraces are unsightly and have the potential to result in adverse noise, visual privacy and potential for a section 96 to enclose these areas.

The proposed roof terraces are considered an appropriate design and are sufficiently separated from the neighbouring properties in relation to visual and acoustic privacy.

The rear setback is non-compliant and affects the view corridor from No. 34 Milford Street.

The amended plans increase the rear setback to near compliance ensuring that views are retained along this corridor from No. 34 Milford Street. The proposed development also provides for a near compliant rear setback in accordance with the RDCP 6.8m minimum rear setback control in Part C2 of the Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013.

The cost of the development is underestimated.

The application has been accompanied by a cost summary report from a quantity surveyor.

The proposed development is inconsistent with the majority of developments which are mostly single and two storey dwellings.

The proposed development’s bulk and scale is considered suitable for the site and the form of development in the area as envisaged by the RLEP and the RDCP.

 

No. 3 Coogee Street requests a 1.8m high side boundary fence.

Noted. A suitable condition is included in the recommendation.

Walls of the main building are above 2m and only 1.2m from the eastern side boundary.

The walls of the development within 1.2m of the eastern side boundary are limited to columns only. These are not immediately noticeable from the openings within the building at No. 3 Coogee Street. The elements of the development sited 1.25m from the eastern side boundary are associated with the stair access and the balustrades for the level 1 balcony. The balconies are being removed as a condition of consent. The stairs from the basement to the level 1 foyer is an open structure and the fact that it is associated with a transient area means it will not result in any significant adverse privacy impacts on this neighbours property. A suitable condition is included requiring this stairwell to be suitably enclosed with slats ensuring no access to no 3 Coogee Street.

The proposed development will affect the retaining wall shared with No. 3 Coogee Street.

This retaining wall (supporting the subject development site) will essentially be removed as part of the excavation for the rear yard and garaging area and would be constructed at the applicant’s cost. Relevant conditions are included to ensure the safe excavation of the retaining wall and that prior to undertaking works, a condition is included advising the applicant and owner 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. It is also noted that a condition is also included requiring the side boundary fencing alongside the eastern neighbour at No. 3 Coogee Street is required to be at a height of 1800mm above the finished ground level which is consistent with the request made in a submission from this neighbour.

Damage to surrounding property from excavation works.

Appropriate condition is included requiring a dilapidation report prior to works.

The proposed building will block views of the ocean from several units in 7B judge Street.

No significant views of the ocean will be lost from the proposed development.

Shifting of the building closer to the front boundary will look more dominant along the Coogee Street frontage

The bulk and scale of the development is considered to be appropriate as detailed in this assessment.

The true FSR is misrepresented and not a true reflection of the bulk and scale

The FSR of any development is required to be distributed throughout the site in order to ensure suitable amenity is provided through cross ventilation, light and general articulation. The proposed distribution of floor area associated with the proposed development is adequate and will not result in any significant adverse impacts.

The communal open space cannot be classed as true open space.

The communal spaces shown on the plans calculate the side passageways and lobby areas and are not considered to perform the function of passive recreational areas for communal open space requirements.

 

Notwithstanding, Part 3D of the ADG provides that the size, location and design of communal open space will vary depending on the site context and the scale of development. In this respect, despite the shortfall the communal open space provided in the rear yard is acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·     The useable part of the communal open space area may be supplemented by open space in the roof terrace providing a high quality outlook for some units;

 

·     The landscaped character of the site will not be unduly impacted by the shortfall in that the development provides for a greater level of deep soil than the minimum required good environmental and water cycle management;

 

·     There are only a small number of units within the development which means that the development is less reliant on communal open spaces.

 

Lack of solar access to No. 2 Albi Place

The proposed development is considered to be appropriately designed having regard to the protection of solar access for No. 2 Albi Place. There will be no appreciable difference in overshadowing between the proposed development and a compliant development having regard to overall heights.

 

Key Issues

 

State Environmental Planning Policy 65 – Design Quality Residential Flat Buildings (Apartment Design Guide)

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal is subject to the policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height and containing four or more dwellings. Council’s Design Review Panel has considered the proposal and the Panel’s comments, which are generally supportive of the proposed development, are included in a Section of the DA Compliance report. The DA compliance report also contains an assessment in accordance with Part 3: Siting the Development and Part 4: Designing the Building of the Apartment Design Guide’s (ADG) design criteria requirements. The key non-compliances to the design criteria require a merit based assessment against the design guidance of the ADG include:

 

·     Orientation - Solar access of neighbouring properties

·     Communal open space and

·     Visual privacy

 

Orientation – Solar access (Part 3B-2 of ADG and Part C2 of RDCP 2013)

This part of the ADG and the RDCP 2013 is included as a key issue in this assessment report as the ADG control requiring 6m side setbacks, rear setbacks and height of the development for the purposes of solar access overshadowing to neighbouring properties has been raised in a submission received by Council from No. 3 Coogee Street. Specifically, the submission points to the Apartment Design Guide (ADG) design criteria where less than two hours of solar access is received by a neighbouring properties private open spaces that the proposed development not reduce solar access by more than 20%.

 

A review of shadowing during the winter solstice reveals that the level of solar access to the rear yard of this neighbour’s property is generally limited to between 8am and 9am and between 3pm and 4pm shown in the aerial image below.

 

Aerial of solar access to portions of the rear yard of No. 3 Coogee Street: The morning sun generally occurs between 8am and 9am (shown in yellow shading) and the 3pm and 4pm solar access is shown by orange shading. The red shading shows the approximate location of the proposed development.

 

Solar access between 8am and 9am is obviously not affected by the proposed development; however during the afternoon, the proposed developments depth will result in the loss of solar access to the rear yard of No. 3 Coogee Street between 3pm to 4pm. The proposal effectively results in 50% loss of solar access which is significantly greater than 20% limit in the ADG.

 

Despite the significant loss of solar access, it is considered that this is unavoidable for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed development’s rear setback is generally compliant with the minimum rear setback control required under the RDCP;

·     The rear part of the proposed development has wall heights that vary between 6.68m at the western elevation and 7.02m which is well below the 8m maximum external wall height control under the RDCP

·     The proposed development is under the allowable maximum FSR standard for medium density development which is indicative of an acceptable form of development on the site that is compatible with surrounding development and the local character of the area having particular regard to the steep sloping topology

·     Articulation provided within the building by virtue of the redistribution of the building envelope to the west through split built design provides for compliant wall heights, compliant eastern side boundary setbacks which minimises impacts of visual bulk and scale upon the neighbouring property to the east at No. 3 Coogee Street. In short the proposed development is supported on the basis of good planning principles of urban design that minimises the impacts on the neighbouring properties a key objective of the R3 zone.

·     The rear yard of No. 3 Coogee Street is already well below the land level of the subject sites and associated side boundary fence along the western boundary which already casts its own shadow over this part of the neighbour’s rear yard.

·     A reduction in the site coverage would also be at odds with the bulk and scale envisaged by the design criteria in the ADG and the RLEP standards for FSR in the R3 Medium Density zone. Further, a reduction in depth to this extent would unfairly reduce the development potential of the site and not allow for the orderly and economic use of land.

 

Overall, in terms of solar access, the proposed development is considered acceptable having regard to the ADG and RDCP. Requiring compliance with the ADG control would require substantial reduction in the size of the development that already displays high levels of compliance in this part of the subject site. This means that a lower height and greater setback would not only be at odds with the applicable maximum limits, but would also result in a less appropriate built form given the context of surrounding development.

 

Objective 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 (inclusive of balconies) to the side boundaries and 3 metres from non-habitable rooms for buildings up to 4 storeys in height.

 

Balconies

Rear balconies:

The proposed rear balconies over both levels at the north eastern corner of the development (apartment 3 and 7) will overlook the rear yard of No. 3 Coogee Street within the ADG required 6m setback. These balconies are also directly connected to living rooms and although they are configured to obtain views towards the ocean it is nevertheless considered reasonable to require additional privacy protection measures. A condition is included requiring 1.6m high appropriately designed privacy screen to be located along the full length of the eastern side of these rear balconies. The rear aspects of the rear first floor level balcony attached to apartment 7 located closest to units in No. 7B Judge Street are considered to be suitably offset on a vertical plan ensuring sufficient privacy protection.

 

Middle balconies:

The proposal includes level 1 balconies located in the middle of the development facing east and located in close proximity to the western side of No. 3 Coogee Street. Although these balconies are connected to bedrooms which are not characteristic of high use and therefore adverse acoustic privacy impacts, they are located along a sizable length of the eastern elevation which will ultimately reduce the development potential of the site opposite at No. 3 Coogee Street. As such a condition is included requiring a these balconies to be deleted.

 

The abovementioned conditions will appropriately minimise direct sightlines into the rear yard and habitable rooms of the eastern neighbour at No. 3 Coogee Street and suitably protect the acoustic amenity of No. 7B Judge Street. The conditions will therefore satisfy the visual and acoustic privacy objectives in Section 5.3 and 5.4 of the RDCP and the ADG.

 

Roof terraces

Three out of the four roof terraces do not pose any significant privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties. However the roof terrace located at the north eastern corner attached to apartment 7 allowed for a direct sightline into the south facing windows of an upper level at No. 7B Judge Street. The amended plans show a privacy screen installed along the northern side of the roof terrace which subject to sufficiently restrict sightlines to the living and bedroom windows of this unit. A further condition is included requiring certain design requirements.

 

Overall, the visual and acoustic privacy for both occupants of the development and neighbouring properties have bene suitably minimised thereby satisfying the relevant objectives and design guidance provided in the ADG and RDCP.

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

 

Earthworks (Cl. 6.2 of the RLEP 2012 & Part C2 of the RDCP 2013)

The basement level is at the Coogee Street level and considered an adequate outcome having regard to the relevant objectives. The significant lowering of the rear yard is considered acceptable because the lower rear yard level will be closer to and more consistent with the finished lower ground levels on neighbouring property at No. 3 Coogee Street. In relation to stability of the neighbouring properties and structures located upon them, appropriate conditions are included to ensure the neighbouring land and structures are adequately supported.

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

 

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

 

-    Setbacks (Section 3.4)

Objectives

·     To define the street edge and establish or maintain consistent rhythm of street setbacks and front gardens that contributes to the local character.

 

·     To ensure adequate separation between buildings for visual and acoustic privacy, solar access, air circulation and views. 

 

·     To reserve contiguous areas for the retention or creation of open space and deep soil planting.

 

The objectives and controls from C2 - Medium Density Residential development have been employed as a guide in this assessment.

 

Front Setbacks

The subject site sits on a corner allotment, bounded by Judge Street to the west and Coogee Street to the South. The front setback fronting Coogee Street has been reduced to around 5.5m. Whilst the front setback is closer to front boundary than the eastern neighbour’s developments from No. 3 to No. 7 Coogee Street, the proposed front setback is considered to satisfy the objectives of the RDCP. The prevailing front setback of the majority of developments along Coogee Street are located closer to the front boundary than these neighbouring buildings from No. 3 to 7 Coogee Street as shown in the aerial photo below.

 

The proposed development also contains multifaceted aspects of articulation through design by using large open elements at the above ground parking, open balcony forms, and an overall split built form design across the street frontage. The proposed design is considered to be a relatively open and lightweight design minimising the fact that the development has walls that significantly exceed the maximum wall height control in the RDCP.

 

Aerial photo: The red line shows the prevailing front setback along this side of Coogee Street.

 

The added benefit of locating the development closer to the front boundary is that it provides a greater rear boundary setback thus minimising the view loss from the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street through the rear corridor and reduces the visual impacts of the development when viewed from the neighbouring property at the rear at No. 7B Judge Street.

 

Overall, the proposed front setback as amended achieves a better planning outcome having regard to the prevailing front setbacks and minimising adverse impacts on neighbouring properties.

 

Secondary street setback along Judge Street

The proposed secondary street frontage of the proposed building is closer to the boundary than the two developments north of the site at No. 7B Judge Street (occupied by the three storey walk up flat building) and No. 7 Judge Street occupied by a single dwelling. The secondary street frontage for the site fronting Judge Street (western boundary), has been provided with a staggered setback, ranging from a 400mm setback (for the front and rear wing of the development) to a 1.25m setback within the middle part of the building.

 

The proposed secondary street setback is considered an adequate approach for the following reasons:

 

·     There is a similar staggered secondary street setback of the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street opposite.

 

·     The position of the development facing Judge Street contains walls that are substantially below the height of buildings standard in the RLEP 2012 and the 8m maximum external wall height provision in the RDCP as shown in the image below.

 

Figure 5: Western elevation of the proposed development showing the development is well below the maximum heights above the adjacent ground level.

 

·     The shorter setbacks to the Judge Street frontage assist in providing adequate building separation from the eastern boundary (in the middle section providing greater than minimum side setbacks), reducing the visual bulk and amenity impacts on the adjoining property at No. 3 Coogee Street which sits on lower land level. The amenity is improved relative to visual and acoustic privacy, air circulation and landscape planters along the eastern elevation.

 

The proposed development is considered to meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013 and will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining properties or the streetscape.

 

Eastern side setback

The subject site has a frontage width of 13.715m, and Part C2 of the RDCP 2013 requires for medium density residential development requires a 2 metre side setback control.

 

The proposal provides staggered side setbacks along the eastern boundary at all levels, the provided side setbacks are as follows:

 

Garage/basement level:

·     Predominantly open structure with walls with a 1.3m side setback;

·     Stairs access from garage to Level 1 above is sited along the side boundary.

 

Level 1:

·     Planters and balconies 1.3m

·     Main walls between 2m and 3m

 

Level 2:

·     Main walls between 2m and 3m

 

The parts of the development that do not meet the minimum 2m minimum side setback control such as the basement/ garage level and level 1 require a merit assessment against the objectives in the RDCP.

 

Garage/basement

The proposed garage/basement provides a solid base facing Coogee Street however it is predominately an open structure along the eastern side elevation facing 3 Coogee Street. There are only five solid elements facing No. 3 Coogee Street and these have lengths of 800mm and 1300mm with no solid elements facing the openings opposite. The stair case however is located on the side boundary facing an opening within No. 3 Coogee Street.  This element will not result in any appreciable adverse impacts on the neighbours. The landing is 1.4m above the header of the opening and has a very oblique view in a downward direction which does not result in any adverse privacy impacts as it the angle of view is so acute ensuring no appreciable view of internal area through this window. This stair is also only a transient area.

 

Level 1:

The proposed planters and balconies forming the roof over the basement/garage level below are located 1.3m from the eastern side boundary however the walls above are located between 2m and 3m from the side boundary ensuring sufficient separation satisfying the objectives in the RDCP.

 

The proposed balustrades and roof of the basement are located well above the windows opposite and do not present any significant bulk or scale when viewed from the property opposite. However, the proposed balconies, whilst associated with low use rooms such as bedrooms, will be in close proximity to the neighbouring property and affect their development potential. As such a condition is included requiring the side balconies to be deleted from the development and for the associated doorways to bedrooms at level 1 be replaced with a window opening with a sill height of at least 1.2m above the internal floor level.

 

The proposed development is considered to meet the relevant objectives in the RDCP 2013 and will not adversely affect the amenity of the adjoining properties or the streetscape subject to appropriate conditions being included.

 

Rear Setback

The RDCP 2013 states that a minimum rear setback of 15% of allotment depth or 5m, whichever is the greater should be provided. The site has a depth of 40.235m and requires a 6.03m rear setback.

 

The proposal provides between 5.8m and 6.68m rear setbacks from the boundary adjoining No. 7B Judge Street. The western portion of the development located 5.58m from the rear boundary is furthest away from openings of the flat building opposite at No. 7B Judge Street and considered acceptable for the purposes of privacy protection and views.

 

The eastern half of the development is located in a direct line of sight of the openings of the apartment building opposite and whilst the distance from the rear boundary meets the minimum requirements under SEPP 65, it is considered that added privacy measures are required to restrict this direct line of sight. A condition is included requiring privacy slats along the northern side of the balcony to restrict sightlines to the openings within the flat building opposite at No. 7B Judge Street.

 

It is also noted that the development contains substantial landscaping in the rear yard providing an added privacy buffer.

 

Overall, subject to the inclusion of conditions it is considered that the proposal meets the relevant objectives and controls in the RDCP 2013.

 

-    Roof terraces (Section 4.2) and view loss

The RDCP allows for terraces, decks or trafficable outdoor spaces on the roof to be considered only if:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The proposed roof terraces and associated pergola structures are lightweight designed structures that will not contribute significantly to the bulk and scale of the development. The location of the roof structures are predominately at the western part of the building ensuring visual and some acoustic privacy protection from the neighbouring dwellings at No. 7B Judge Street, 34 Milford Street and No. 3 Coogee Street ensuring adequate protection of visual and acoustic privacy of these neighbours. However, the planning issue requiring further consideration includes loss of views of the ocean across the roof terraces associated with apartments 7 and 8. Another concern relates to the acoustic amenity of the apartment building at No. 7B Judge Street whereby the visual privacy screen added as part of amended plans received by Council on 24 March 2017 is not considered sufficiently designed to protect acoustic amenity.

 

In relation to views, proposed privacy screen and wall separating the roof terraces will result in the loss of views of the ocean from level 1 of the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street as well as the view from the front porch of No. 32 Milford Street the remaining view of that lost as a result of the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street.

 

Whilst it is acknowledged that these views are across a side boundary, it is not considered that the proposed roof terraces are a necessity and the structures resulting in view loss contain bulk and massing that are not considered necessary elements of design or amenity for the future occupants of these units.

 

A condition is therefore included requiring the roof terraces and associated structures to apartments 7 & 8 to be deleted from the development. The internal stairs shall be converted into balcony space ensuring compliance with the ADG minimum requirements for private open space.

 

-    Landscaping (Section 2.2)

The proposal provides 46.9% of the site area as open space which is short of the 50% minimum required under the RDCP 2013. A submission was also received with concerns of an incorrectly calculated open space area. Following a review of the nominated landscaped area against the RLEP definition for landscaped open space it is considered that the landscaped open space areas has been calculated correctly.

 

The proposed shortfall of landscaped open space requires a merit assessment against the following objectives in the RDCP:

 

·     To provide landscaped open space of sufficient size to enable the space to be used for recreational activities, or be capable of growing substantial vegetation.

·     To reduce impermeable surface cover including hard paving.

·     To improve stormwater quality and reduce quantity.

·     To improve the amenity of open space with landscaped design.

 

The proposed landscape area is considered to satisfy the above objectives for the following reasons:

 

·     The shortfall is relatively minor

·     The proposed open space elements are well distributed throughout the permitted of the site provide good amenity

·     The proposed development provides greater than minimum deep soil area throughout the site ensuring good stormwater quality and reduced quantity

·     The front and rear yards contains landscaping over stepped land levels which both soften the appearance of the development from street level and seek to reflect the natural topography of land on the site. 

 

-    External wall height (Section 4.4)

The RDCP 2013 states that where the site is subject to a 9.5m building height limit under the RLEP, a maximum external wall height of 8m applies.

 

The most pronounced section of the development exceeding the maximum external wall height control of 8m occurs along the front and the eastern part of the development as shown in figures 6 & 7 below.

 

Figure 6: Western elevation: shows the walls along the Judge Street boundary are well below the maximum 8m permissible under the RDCP.

 

Figure 7: Eastern elevation of the development showing the front half of the development has wall heights that exceed the 8m maximum. These elements are located further from the side boundary than the minimum side setback required under the RDCP.

 

A merit assessment is required against the following objectives under the RDCP for external wall heights:

 

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

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

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

 

In relation to objective point 1, the proposed built form has been previously discussed under the Exception to the overall height standard and roof design. In short the massing of the walls has been suitably minimised through split stepped elements and mix of materials; the roof structures are lightweight structures with the more pronounced brick walls between the roof terraces setback and arranged perpendicular from the Judge Street frontage.

 

Figure 8: Section through Milford Street showing the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street and the proposed development at right in the image.

 

In relation to objective point 2, the proposed development contains compliant floor to ceiling heights ensuring good light and ventilation.

 

In relation to objective point 3, the impacts on the neighbouring properties have been suitably minimised as discussed in the relevant sections throughout this report having particular regard to privacy, overshadowing and visual amenity.

 

Overall, the proposed external wall heights are considered to satisfy the associated objectives under the RDCP.

 

Views (Section 5.5)

 

The RDCP requires the following matters to be considered in the assessment of view sharing from the proposed development.

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

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

·     To ensure developments are sensitively and skilfully designed to maintain a reasonable amount of views from the development, neighbouring dwellings and the public domain.

 

The planning principle established by Roseth SC pp25-29 Tenacity Consulting v Warringah [2004] NSWLEC 140 identifies a number of steps to qualitatively assess view sharing and is addressed in the following sections.

 

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

 

The existing views currently available to the neighbouring properties in question are described below:

 

No. 32 Milford Street:

 

Views obtained from the ground level front porch of No. 32 Milford Street. The view is a distant horizon view across the side boundary of the rear part of the subject site. The view is interspersed with vegetation and building elements beyond the subject site.

 

No. 34 Milford Street:

The views will be obtained from the first and second floor levels of the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street. Note RL levels have been used from the approved development held by Council, photo taken by the owner of the affected site; the applicant’s documentation including:

 

·     Street section which generally correlate with the RL levels approved for 34 Milford Street;

·     View analysis

 

A photo of the view from the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street has been provided by the owner of that site.

 

View from No. 34 Milford Street: Provided by the owner of No. 34 Milford Street and site plan show that the views will be obtained from the front of their development at ground, first and second floor levels. The views from the eastern side of No. 34 Milford Street take in a horizon distant view of the ocean in a diagonal direction across the subject site.  These views are interspersed with vegetation and buildings.

 

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

 

32 Milford Street:

The view from No. 32 Milford Street is from their front porch area in a sideways direction however these views were the retained views lost from the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street.

 

34 Milford Street

The views from No. 34 Milford Street are from ground, first and second floor level of an approved development. These views are from the long secondary street frontage along Judge Street. These views are from high use rooms and balconies within the approved development.

 

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

 

32 Milford Street

The proposal will affect the section of the ocean view retained from that lost across the side boundary from the approved development at No. 34 Milford Street. The view will be through the lightweight roof structure and lost through the privacy screen and brick wall separating the roof terraces to apartments 7 & 8.

 

View loss photo taken from 32 Milford Street in the assessment of the proposed development at No. 34 Milford Street. Note the tree protruding above the roof in the picture.

Photo taken from the front porch of the affected unit showing the tree protruding above the building.

View analysis: shows the eave overhang in a similar line in the above photo directly above the tree in the foreground and in line with the rear privacy screen and brick privacy wall. This means that the view across this area will be lost from the porch area.

 

34 Milford Street

The views from ground level will be lost completely, however the ground level is relatively at a similar level to the second floor level of the proposed development which presents as a two storey structure from the western elevation. The views from first floor level will be obstructed by the proposed roof terrace structures including the privacy screen added as part of amended plans received by Council on 24 March and the brick wall that separates the two roof terraces attached to apartment 7 and 8. The views from second floor level will not be affected by the proposed development.

 

Step 4: “The fourth step is to assess the reasonableness of the proposal that is causing the impact. A development that complies with all planning controls would be considered more reasonable than one that breaches them. Where an impact on views arises as a result of non-compliance with one or more planning controls, even a moderate impact may be considered unreasonable. With a complying proposal, the question should be asked whether a more 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.”

 

It is evident that:

 

·     The proposal complies with the maximum allowable FSR and maximum allowable height limit of 9.5m under the RLEP in this rear part of the development;

·     The proposal complies with the external wall height, of the Randwick DCP, these privacy screens and brick wall associated with the roof terrace have a height of 7.63m and 7.61m above the adjacent ground level (RL38.69).

 

Whilst these elements are below the 8m maximum wall height control they are however, associated with a part of the development located in close proximity to the rear upper level unit of No. 7B Judge Street whose bedroom and living room face the roof terraces. Given these impacts and the fact that appropriate open spaces can be accommodated at the rear of the proposed development, it is considered that a more skilful design could achieve a better sharing of views from the level 1 units of No. 34 Milford Street.

 

In a similar vein, it is noted that a substantial portion of the remaining ocean views from the front porch of No. 32 Milford Street will also be lost as a result of these terraces.

 

It is therefore considered reasonable to include a condition requiring the deletion of the roof terraces attached to apartment 7 & 8.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal complies with the relevant assessment criteria and where conditioned for amendment the proposed development will not result in any unreasonable adverse impacts upon either the amenity of the adjoining premises or the character of the locality.

 

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

 

 

Recommendation

 

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 Clause 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/555/2016 for demolition of the existing structures, construction of a new 3 storey residential flat building comprising of 8 apartments, 10 car spaces and rooftop terraces, at No. 1 Coogee Street, Randwick, 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 1.6m above floor level must be provided to the following parts of the development:

 

·     Eastern sides of rear balconies to apartments 3 & 7;

·     Eastern sides of the stair and landing providing access between parking level and level 1.

 

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.

 

b.  The balconies located on the eastern side of apartments 2 & 3 in the middle of the development including associated balustrades shall be deleted from the development. The door openings associated with bedrooms in this part of the development shall be replaced with windows with a minimum sill height of 1.2m above internal floor level.

 

c.   The rear roof terraces and associated structures including stairs associated with apartments 7 & 8 shall be deleted from the development in order to ensure a fair sharing of views from the neighbouring properties at No. 32 and No. 34 Milford Street.

 

d.  The proposed side boundary fence located on the eastern side boundary (behind the front building line) shall be installed at a height of 1800mm, measured above the finished ground level within the subject site.

 

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 - 1 Coogee St, Randwick

Included under separate cover

 

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                               9 May 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D40/17

 

Subject:              34 Milford Street, Randwick (DA/505/2014/B)

Folder No:                DA/505/2014/B

Author:                     Jonathan Blackmore, Environmental Planning Officer      

 

Proposal:                  Section 96 modification of the approved development to increase the size of the basement parking area and additional bedroom and increase size of bathroom

                                  Original consent: Demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new three storey residential flat building containing 5 units and basement parking for seven vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works

Ward:                        East Ward

Applicant:                John Mavrodontidis

Owner:                     John and Desi Mavrodontidis

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=84d8211d-374d-45b6-a0a0-a8dba6cdfc8a&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

 

 

Development Application Executive Summary Report

 

The application is a referred to the Planning Committee for determination as the original consent was determined at a Council meeting. 

 

Proposal

The applicant proposes a Section 96 modification of the approved development to increase the size of the basement parking area, add an additional bedroom and increase the size of a bathroom.

 

Original consent: Demolition of an existing dwelling and construction of a new three storey residential flat building containing 5 units and basement parking for seven vehicles, strata subdivision, associated site and landscaping works.

 

Site

The subject site is located on the northern side of Milford Street, at its intersection with Judge Street.

 

The subject site is described as Lot B in DP 441827, No. 34 Milford Street, Randwick. The site is located at the north-western corner of the intersection between Milford and Judge Streets. The dimensions and land area of the site are summarised in the table below:

 

Boundary

Length

Land area

Northern, rear boundary

15.235m

 

Southern, Milford Street boundary

12.955m

 

South-eastern corner splay

3.285m

 

Eastern, Judge Street boundary

30.555m

 

Western, side boundary

33.005m

 

 

 

499.5m2

 

The site is elevated approximately 0.7m to 1.3m and 1.3m to 2.0m over the Milford Street and Judge Street footpaths respectively.

 

The site was previously occupied by a single-storey detached dwelling of brick and tiled roof construction. The site is adjoined to the west by a single-storey detached dwelling (No. 32 Milford Street). A 3.66m wide public footpath adjoins the site on its northern boundary. To the east of the site on the opposite side of Judge Street are a part 1- and part 2-storey detached dwelling (No. 7 Judge Street) and a part 3- and part 4-storey residential flat building (No. 30 Clyde Street). To the south of the site on the opposite side of Milford Street is a detached dwelling (No. 4 Judge Street).

 

The locality is characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwelling houses, in-fill multi-unit residential buildings and an educational establishment.

Figure 1. Photograph of the subject site.

 

SECTION 96 ASSESSMENT:

 

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

 

Substantially the Same Development:

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature of the approved development as it primarily involves an additional bedroom and changes to the basement. For the purposes of legislative requirements under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, it is considered that the application remains substantially within the scope of the original development approval both qualitatively and quantitatively.

 

Submissions

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

 

-     28 Milford Street

-     32 Milford Street

-     7 Judge Street

-     1 Coogee Street

-     1/5 Courland Street

 

Issue

Comment

1.        The proposal fails the “substantially the same” test due to the proposed FSR non-compliance.

2.        No BASIX certificate was submitted and the application should be renotified with a BASIX certificate supplied.

3.        Concerns about privacy and requests for opaque glazing and privacy screens.

4.        The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of the FSR clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012.

5.        View loss from the public domain (a public thoroughfare to the rear of the subject site).

6.        Additional shadowing with no shadowing diagrams.

7.        Concerned about a potential increase in traffic and parking demand due to the additional bedroom.

8.        The development should comply with all relevant planning controls.

9.        The proposed basement setback could reduce the amenity of the adjoining property due to noise.

10.      Concerns about ground stability, the professionalism of the builder and a previous ground collapse/retaining wall damage.

11.      The building has been under construction for a long period of time and the site is an eyesore.

12.      The application is “gaming the system” and the council should support its own guidelines and not be so compliant. 

 

1.        The proposal is deemed to pass the “substantially the same” test - see S96 Section.

2.        A new BASIX certificate has now been submitted and resulted in no changes significant enough to warrant re-notification.

3.        No new balconies are proposed. Visual privacy in relation to new windows will result in no additional overlooking due to window sill heights, separation distances, or an existing condition requiring a privacy screen to the north facing 2nd floor level balcony (see visual privacy assessment).

4.        The proposal is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the floor space ratio standard and will result in no significant adverse impacts

5.        The proposal does not increase the height of the proposal or the above ground footprint and will result in no discernable view loss.

6.        Additional shadowing diagrams are not required due to the lack of increases to the height or ground floor footprint. The north-south orientation of the site and corner position allows for adequate solar access to adjoining residential sites.   

7.        The additional bedroom does not affect the existing compliance with the Council’s parking requirements and will result in an indiscernible increase in traffic generation.

8.        Any additional non-compliances are assessed within the S96 assessment below.

9.        The basement is below ground level, no new above ground plant equipment is proposed. A condition is recommended to delete the basement addition due to a lack of deep soil permeable surface.

10.      Appropriate conditions are present on the original approval to manage ground stability and any property damage. The professionalism of a builder is not a matter of consideration under the EP&A Act.

11.      The length of construction time is not a matter that can be considered under this application. The construction of the building was approved by the original DA.

12.      The applicant has made an application for a Section 96 modification and the application is assessed on its merits against the relevant criteria.

SECTION 79C ASSESSMENT

 

Environmental Planning Instruments

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

A BASIX assessment is a mandatory component of the development approval process under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) Regulation 2004 and State Environmental Planning Policy (Building Sustainability Index: BASIX) 2004.

 

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

 

The applicant had submitted a new BASIX certificate. Standard conditions of consent requiring the continued compliance of the development with the SEPP:BASIX were included in the original determination.

 

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

SEPP No. 65 aims to promote quality design of Residential Flat Buildings. The proposal would generally be subject to the Policy as it involves the development of a residential flat building being 3 storeys and more in height and containing four or more units. However, this modification is deemed to not be a substantial redevelopment of the building and, as such, the application did not require referral to Council’s SEPP 65 Design Excellence Panel.   

 

Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012

The following clauses of LEP 2012 are relevant to the proposed development:

 

Zone R3 – Medium Density Residential

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

 

Maximum Height – Clause 4.3 of the RLEP 2012

The proposed modification does increase the height of the proposal or exceed the height of building standard. 

 

Floor Space Ratio – Clause 4.4 of the RLEP 2012

The development has an approved floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.75:1. A revised FSR of 0.80:1 is proposed, which exceed the maximum FSR standard of 0.75:1 by 0.05:1 or 6.7%.

 

The proposed non-compliance with the floor space ratio standard will not be inconsistent with the zoning objectives or objectives of the standard and will result in no significant adverse impacts in terms of the amenity values of the area or the residential amenity of neighbouring residents. The building footprint and height of the building are not proposed to be modified. The building will feature adequate physical and material articulation and the built scale and appearance is not proposed to be significantly modified. The proposal will not increase number of units on the site and the intensity of use of the site consistent with the relevant LEP objectives. The increase in floor area will not result in any reduction in solar access or visual privacy for neighbouring residents. Adequate landscaping is proposed for the site and this will blend the built form into the existing context.

 

Development Control Plans

Deep Soil Permeable

The approved deep soil permeable area is 28% and the application proposes a deep soil permeable area of 9.6%. It is recommended that approval not be granted for basement extensions (excluding retaining changes). This would ensure a deep soil permeable area of 22.2% is retained on site.  The RDCP 2013 requires a minimum deep soil permeable area of 25%.

 

The landscaped appearance of the site will, therefore, generally remain unchanged and adequate deep soil permeable surfaces will be present around the edges of the building. The loss of deep soil will result from a required retaining wall zone. Further, the Council’s development engineering team have raised no issues concerning stormwater runoff.

 

Visual Privacy

New windows to the west are to be high level windows which will preserve the visual privacy of sites to the west. Condition 2a requires a privacy screen along the entire extent of the northern side of the second floor level balcony. This is still applicable to the modified proposal and will prevent overlooking of adjoining sites from the newly proposed 2nd floor level northern bedroom windows/doors. Sufficient separation distances will prevent privacy concerns in relation to the eastern windows and sites across Judge Street.

 

View Sharing

Due to the lack of increase in the above ground building footprint and a lack of height increase, the view sharing outcome is unchanged. The creation of the additional floor area will not impact views from surrounding properties.

 

Other Environmental Impacts – Section 79C(1)(b)

The proposed modification will result in no adverse social, economic or significant environmental impacts. In particular, the proposed modification does not increase or significantly modify the approved built height or increase the above ground footprint, and the general intensity of use of the residential flat building remains unchanged. 

 

Site Suitability

The modification to the approved development does not alter the nature or scale of the approved development in relation to site suitability.

 

Referral Comments

Development Engineering

The Council’s Development Engineer makes the following comments concerning the proposal:

 

The modifications in this Section 96 application include the proposed 2 bedroom unit becoming a 3 bedroom unit and storage areas being included on the western side of the basement car park.

 

The Parking provision for 4 x 1 bedroom units and 1 x 3 bedroom units would be as follows:

 

4 x 1 bedroom          =   4 x 1 spaces           = 4 spaces

1 x 3 bedroom          =   1 x 1.5 spaces        = 1.5 spaces

Visitor Parking           =   5 x 0.25 spaces      = 1.25 space

 

Total required now is 6.75 spaces (say 7) and 7 spaces are proposed.

 

Thus the additional bedroom to create a 3 bedroom unit does not affect the existing compliance with Council’s parking requirements.

 

Neighbour’s Tree Comments

i)   The only environmental consideration for this application relates to the two mature Banksia integrifolia (Coastal Banksia’s, T12-13), located on higher ground, wholly on the adjoining private property at 32 Milford Street, against the common boundary.

 

Original comments detailed that the existing masonry wall/dividing fence on the common boundary, 200mm from their trunks, would have acted as a physical barrier to prevent any roots entering the subject site at all, with condition 11b stating that the western wall of the basement was to be offset a distance of 2900mm from this common boundary, which would retain an area of deep soil for future landscaping/screen planting.

 

This application now seeks to increase the size of the basement in order to accommodate new store/plant rooms, which will reduce the offset from the western boundary down to 1300mm; however, piering in this new location should still not have any physical impact on these trees, as evidenced by the root mapping trench (shown in Figure 2 of the Arborists Report), which confirms a complete absence of any roots at this 1300mm offset.

 

For this reason, the assessing officer is advised that no objections are raised to amending condition 11b as sought, and will now read as follows:

 

b.   The Construction Certificate plans must show that the western wall of the proposed basement level will finish at a minimum offset of 1300mm from the western site boundary, as is shown on the Basement Plan, S96-02 (E), dated 15.08.16.

 

Assessing Officer’s Comment: As discussed above, it is recommended that consent is not granted to the basement enlargement due to a substantial reduction in deep soil permeable surface. Therefore, and after discussing the matter with development engineering, Condition 11b is now amended to reflect the new basement plan reference with the same minimum western boundary offset as the original approval.

 

ii)  Condition 50, ‘Pruning of neighbouring trees’, already allowed clearance pruning of their eastern aspects where needed in order to avoid conflict with the piling rig along this boundary, and while the rig will now be sited 1600mm closer than what was originally approved, no changes to the pruning conditions are needed.

 

iii)  Reducing the western side setback of the basement reduces the amount of deep soil that can be provided in this area, which may result in a need to update the approved Landscape Plan, and as such, the assessing officer is advised that condition 69 should be amended to now read as follows (changes shown in bold):

 

Landscaping

69. Prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date that the completed landscaping was inspected, and that it has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan by Zenith Landscape Designs, dwg 14-2828 L01, dated 27.5.14, with this Plan also needing to have been revised (where necessary) so as to be consistent with those changes that have been made to the Amended S96 Architectural Plans by MHN DUNION, dated 15-08-16 as amended by condition 11b, with particular emphasis on the reduced amount of deep soil along the western boundary.

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial Impact Statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

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

 

Therefore, the application is recommended for approval.

 

Recommendation

 

That Council, as the consent authority, grants consent under Section 96 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, as amended, to modify Development Consent No. DA/505/2014/B by the provision of an additional bedroom and increasing the size of bathroom, plus basement retaining changes.  The consent is modified in the following manner:

 

·  Amend Condition 1 to read:

“Approved Plans & Supporting Documentation

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

Received by Council

DA03 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA04 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA05 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA06 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA07 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA08 C

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA09 C

MHN Design Union

05.09.2014

05.09.2014

DA10 C

MHN Design Union

05.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA11 C

MHN Design Union

05.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA12 C

MHN Design Union

05.09.2014

08.09.2014

DA018A

MHN Design Union

08.09.2014

08.09.2014

Draft Strata Plan Sheets 1 of 5 to 5 of 5 Issue A

Eric Scerri

Undated

30 July, 2014

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

Received by Council

551063M_03

24 July, 2014

30 July, 2014

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

DA04 D2

MHN Design Union

24/4/2015

Plan

Drawn by

Received by Council

Draft Strata Plan Sheets 1 of 5 to 5 of 5 Issue A

Eric Scerri

12/06/2015

 

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

 

Plan

Drawn by

Dated

S96-010(E) 

MHN Design Union

15 August 2016

S96-02(E) 

MHN Design Union

15 August 2016

S96-03EA) 

MHN Design Union

15 August 2016

S96-04(E) to

MHN Design Union

15 August 2016

S96-08(C)

MHN Design Union

15 August 2016

S96-09(E) 

MHN Design Union

15 August 2016

S96-11(E) to S96-12(E)

MHN Design Union

15 August 2016

Draft Strata Plan Sheets 1 to 5 Issue C

Eric Scerri

2 September 2016

 

BASIX Certificate No.

Dated

804484M

15 March 2017

 

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

 

Amend Condition 11b to read:

·     The Construction Certificate plans must show that the western wall of the proposed basement level will finish at a minimum offset of 2900mm from the western site boundary.

 

·     Amend Condition 69 to read:

Prior to issuing any type of Occupation Certificate, certification from a qualified professional in the landscape/horticultural industry must be submitted to, and be approved by, the PCA, confirming the date that the completed landscaping was inspected, and that it has been installed substantially in accordance with the Landscape Plan by Zenith Landscape Designs, dwg 14-2828 L01, dated 27.5.14, with this Plan also needing to have been revised (where necessary) so as to be consistent with those changes that have been made to the Amended S96 Architectural Plans by MHN DUNION, dated 15-08-16, by condition 11b with particular emphasis on the reduced amount of deep soil along the western boundary.

 

Add Condition 86 

·     Consent is not granted for the additional basement floor area and associated western basement wall changes shown on sheet S96-02(E) dated 15 August 2016, except for the work labelled “Zone for Retaining Structure”. Details of the basement layout and retaining shall be provided to and approved by the Council’s Development Engineering team prior to the preparation of construction certificate.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil

 

 


Planning Committee                                                                                                               9 May 2017

 

RCC LOGO_Stacked_COLOUR_RGB

 

Development Application Report No. D41/17

 

Subject:              27 Duncan Street, Maroubra (DA/234/2016)

Folder No:                DA/234/2016

Author:                     Louis Coorey, Senior Environmental Planning Officer     

 

Proposal:                  Section 82A Review of determination for alterations and additions to the existing building, fencing with associated works and conversion to childcare centre catering 24 children

Ward:                        Central Ward

Applicant:                Concise Planning Pty Ltd

Owner:                     Siena and Dante Enterprises Pty Ltd

Summary

Recommendation:   Approval

http://interactivemapping/Geocortex/Essentials/prod/REST/TempFiles/Export.jpg?guid=fc46684e-0712-41f1-8d6d-c718e567576c&contentType=image%2Fjpeg

 

Subject Site

 

 

 

 

Submissions received

 

 

Ù

North

 

Locality Plan

 

Development Application Executive summary report

 

The Section 82A review is referred to the Council meeting as the original application was determined at a Council meeting on 22 November 2016. The Section 82A review is also referred to the Planning Committee Meeting at the request of Councillors Andrews, Send and Stavrinos.

 

 

Proposal

 

Section 82A Review of determination for alterations and additions to the existing building, fencing with associated works and conversion to operate as a childcare centre catering for 24 children.

 

Amendments: Reduction in number of children catered for at the centre from 43 to 24 children.

 

The proposal in details includes:

 

·     Alteration to the front fence for a new gate;

·     Alterations to rear fence for BCA compliance and noise attenuation (1.8m above the level of 2 Bond Street at the rear)

·     1.8m fence perpendicular to the front boundary (existing fence is 1.8m in height and will sufficiently shield this wall from view)

·     2.8m high fence (setback 900mm from the northern side boundary) alongside No. 25 Duncan Street (photos of openings opposite and height relative to windows.) note there is no minimum rear setback control as the site is irregular in shape.

·     A new 2.1m high fence alongside the carspace located closes to the street frontage. Again this fence forms part of the existing mostly enclosed carport and will not present obtrusively from the streetscape along Duncan Street.

·     Construction of 3 shade structures : one located over the sandpit at the end of the carparking; a shade structure in between the main building and the car parking area (located in line with the building line)

 

·     Hours of operation

 

Monday to Friday 7am to 6pm

 

·     Plan of management:

 

Application history:

 

The original application was for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling house building, garage and fencing with associated works and conversion to childcare centre catering for 43 children.

 

22 November 2016: Council at its Ordinary Council meeting refused the development application for the following reasons:

 

1.     The proposal does not satisfy the objective of the R2 Low Density Residential zone in relation to protecting the amenity of residents, which is specified in the Randwick Local Environmental Plan 2012.

 

2.     The proposal does not satisfy the relevant objectives and controls in relation to on-site parking provision contained within Randwick DCP 2013, Part B7, Clause 3.2(i) and Part D11, Clause 5.

 

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

 

4.     The proposal does not satisfy the relevant submission requirements contained within Randwick DCP 2013, Part 4.4(i), which requires the submission of a landscape plan identifying elements including proposed plantings.

 

5.     The development application does not provide sufficient supporting information to demonstrate that the proposed hours of operation are compatible with adjoining land uses, as required by Randwick DCP 2013, Part 6(i).

 

Site

 

The site is located on the eastern side of Duncan Street and contains a single storey dwelling house with detached garage and an attached outbuilding. The site is adjoined by single storey dwelling houses, with older style residential flat buildings further north along Duncan Street. The site is rectangular in shape with boundary depths of around 20.1m and a site area of 400sqm.

 

Image 1: Subject Site

 

Statutory Requirements Under Section 82A Review

 

Section 82A of the Act enables an applicant to request a review of Council’s decision to refuse a Development Application, or a condition(s) imposed in a development consent granted by Council. In the event that the applicant has made amendments to the development proposal, Council must be satisfied that the development, as amended, is substantially the same as that originally described in the application. Council may review the determination, and as a consequence of the review, may confirm or change the determination.

 

The proposed Section 82A Review involves changes to those from the original development application including reducing the number of child care places and installing one additional on-site staff parking space. The proposed development as sought under this Section 82A application will subsequently remain substantially the same development and satisfies Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, 1979 (as amended).

 

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:

 

·     10 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     2/14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra

·     6/14 Bellevue Street, Maroubra & PETITON - 8 signatures

·     7 Bona Vista Avenue, Maroubra

·     2 Bond Street, Maroubra

·     3/19-21 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     25 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     29 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     36 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     38 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     56 Duncan Street, Maroubra - Petition containing 138 Signatures

·     62 Duncan Street, Maroubra

·     39 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     43 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     44 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     46 First Avenue, Maroubra

·     3 Sackville Street, Maroubra

 

Issue

 Comment

Child care centre will exacerbate existing high demand for parking and traffic in Duncan Street.

Councils Development Engineer and Traffic Committee have considered the parking demand and location of drop-off and pick-up spaces raising no objections. The traffic generation associated with the proposed development is expected to have minimal impact on the performance of the surrounding road network.

 

Refer to Key issues section relating to Parking and Development Engineer referral comments.

Child Care centres should not be in residential areas

Child care centres are permissible in the R2 low density residential zone. The proposed child care centre has been considered in the context of the objectives of the R2 low density residential zone and considered to be an appropriate sustainable development.

Child care centre is a commercial use that is inconsistent with the residential character

The child care provides a service that is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the R2 zone. The potential impacts have been assessed in this report and considered to have been suitably minimised by the Section 82A review application.

The site area with dimensions of 20m x 20m is unsuitable for the site.

The site dimensions and indoor and outdoor area meet the minimum requirements for both the drop-off and pick-up zones and care of 24 children.

Child care centre will contribute to noise disturbance

The noise impacts have been suitably addressed by the material submitted with the Section 82A review and the subject of conditions.

The proponents may be unfit to operate a child care centre

There are certain conditions required to be complied with and for certain licenses be obtained prior to running a child care centre. The accreditation is a matter for the State Government.

Duncan Street should be a 40km/hr zone

The area outside the premises is not a school zone as defined under the Roads Act and not required to be the subject of a reduced speed zone. It is noted that the children will be supervised by the parents or guardians during drop off and pick up. 

 

There is no evidence of demand for a child care centre

This assessment under the EP&A Act, 1979 has provided a consideration of the public interest and in the relevant matters considered as part of this assessment; the proposed child care centre is a facility that the community will utilise. On balance the potential impacts have been effectively addressed and will be managed on an ongoing basis through the implementation of appropriate conditions of consent. As a consequence the proposal is considered to be in the public interest.

There is no indication of hours of operation

The hours of operation are subject of conditions limiting the use from Monday to Friday between 7am and 6pm only. after hours use and weekend uses are prohibited.

The street is very narrow and not appropriate for a child care centre in relation to safety.

There are no concerns raised by Councils Traffic committee in relation to the safe functioning of the drop off and pick up zone along Duncan Street. 

Duncan Street has high traffic volumes and poor sightlines.

The traffic volume associated with the child care centre is not considered to have a significant impact on the movement of traffic along Duncan Street.

The drop off and pick up zones are located outside other people’s properties

The drop off and pick up zones are in the public road and are located out the front of the subject site only.

The subject site is located in close proximity to the T-intersection of First Avenue which has sightline restrictions

Council’s Development Engineer indicates that the proposed drop off and pick up zone is not anticipated to result in any adverse impact on existing sightlines.

The proposed child care centre appears to not meet the statutory national childcare accreditation requirements.

It is a prescribed requirement that appropriate licenses be obtained for particular child care centres. The Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority requires that a provider must ensure they are familiar with obligations under the Education and Care Services National Law (National Law) and the Education and Care Services National Regulations (National Regulations). Regulatory authorities in each state and territory are responsible for assessing applications.

The landscape plan indicates only one space for parking.

This is an error and a condition is included requiring the art space shown on the landscape plan to be deleted and to be consistent with the parking arrangement shown on the architectural plan referenced in condition 1.

Dispute the research of the Traffic Assessment.

The application including relevant material such as the Traffic Assessment has been reviewed by the Development Engineer and Councils Assessment Officer. The proposed development is considered to be suitable for the site having regard to assessment against the relevant standards in the RLEP and provisions in the RDCP such as Part B7 and Part D11.

The proposed child care centre does not provide enough space for indoor and outdoor use.

The subject site provides at approximately 150sqm of outdoor space for children and will be allow for only 21 children to use the outdoor space at the same time. More importantly, there is no requirement that the outdoor space be used by all children at the same time. This may be staggered uses. The indoor space is approximately 110sqm and provides ample space based on the RDCP requirements in Part D11 requiring 3.25sqm per child. 

Inadequate landscaping.

Landscaping is provided throughout the site. There is a shortfall in landscaping along a portion of the frontage to Duncan Street and as such a condition is included requiring a minimum 1m wide landscape buffer along the Duncan Street frontage excluding access pathways.

The Council should ensure safe passage of children to and from the premises.

No part of the development restricts the ability to provide safe passage for children to and from the centre.

There is not enough space for the 24 vehicles

Traffic generated from the proposed development is not expected to have any significant impact on the capacity of the surrounding road network and their service levels.

The subject site is in very close proximity to the intersection of Bond Street and First Avenue.

There are no new driveways being proposed and further the fact the on-site parking spaces are for staff means that they will not be used as regularly as those in the drop off and pick up zone.

The time restrictions imposed in front of the property will have a negative impact on the existing residents

The timed parking is located in front of the site and will be in place during the operating hours of the premises.

The location of play areas will result in significant noise impact and the measures employed will not suitably ameliorate noise from children.

Council’s Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the acoustic report and considers that subject to conditions that the measures will suitably ameliorate noise impacts from the child care centre.

The centre is not located in close proximity to public transport

Regular bus services from Torrington Road and Maroubra Road are within walking distance of the subject site.

Should the 24 spaces be approved then the applicant will apply in future for an increase

Each application is assessed on its merits and the applicable objectives and controls in the policy guidelines.

Increase in waste generation

Appropriate conditions are included in relation to waste management.

 

Key Issues

 

R2 Zone Low Density Residential – Randwick Local Environmental Plan

 

The site is zoned R2 Low Density Residential zone and the proposed child care centre is permissible form of development on the site.

 

The relevant objectives of the R2 zone are assessed as follows:

 

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

 

The proposed use of the dwelling as a child care centre provides a facility that will meet the day to day needs of the residents in the vicinity of the site as well as the wider area.

 

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

 

The proposed development seeks to carry out only minor alterations and additions to the site including fencing, screens and shade structures. There are no physical elements that are construed as having any significant adverse impacts on the desired future character of the area. It is also noted that the applicant has submitted a landscape plan with this Section 82a application which is considered to suitably address one of the reasons for refusal of the application. Notwithstanding, a condition is included in order to ensure appropriate implementation of landscaping within the site.

 

·     To protect the amenity of residents.

 

The proposal will not impose any significant physical impacts on the amenity of the occupants of nearby dwellings in terms of visual bulk and scale.

 

The potential for adverse amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties is mostly associated with the proposed child care centre in terms of noise and parking demand. The applicant has submitted an acoustic report which has been the subject of review by Council Senior Environmental Health Officer and the subject of appropriate conditions. The parking demand created by the child care centre is manageable and Councils Development Engineer considers that the substantial reduction in child places within the centre has adequately minimised the demand for on street pick up and drop off parking spaces generated by the proposed child care centre.

 

With the absence of any significant concerns with noise or sufficient space for drop off and pick up, it is considered that the proposed child care centre, the subject of this Section 82A review is acceptable having regard to protecting the amenity of residents.

 

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

 

Randwick Comprehensive Development Control Plan (RDCP) 2013

 

Part D 11, Specific Commercial uses – Child Care Centres

 

This section applies to the proposed development which is seeking conversion or adaptation of an existing dwelling to a child care centre and sets out objectives and controls to guide the location and design of child care centres with a key focus on ensuring the safety and well-being of children and achieving a high standard of amenity for the site and surrounding locality, particularly adjoining residential land uses.

The relevant objectives in this part of the RDCP include: 

 

·     To provide for the establishment of high quality child care centres that is located and designed to achieve a high level of safety, security, environmental health and amenity for their users.

 

·     To ensure that child care centres respond positively to the context and setting and minimise adverse environmental impact in the locality.

 

·     To deliver certainty to applicants, operators and the local community about the planning requirements for child care centres.

 

It must be noted that the original application did not raise any significant issues of concern with the operation and management of the proposed child care centre having regard to the objectives under Part D11 of the RDCP. The key issue of concern related to the parking. A review of the subject application as amended does not raise any planning matters that would give rise to reconsideration of the original application notwithstanding the significant reduction in the number of children to be taken care of in the child care centre.

 

Having regard to the above, the proposed child care centre is considered to satisfy the objectives for the following reasons:

 

·     The proposed child care centre is located in the Residential R2 zone in which the proposed use is permissible.

·     The subject site is also well serviced being in close proximity to public transport.

·     The proposal is mainly contained within the existing buildings on the site with outdoor areas reserved for play.

·     The site has a sufficient size to accommodate both internal and outdoor play for the number of children nominated;

·     The existing building is built over a site whose topography is relatively flat and considered to contribute to the effective and safe use of the site for purposes of a child care centre.

·     The number of staff members is appropriate for the number of children sought to be taken care off;

·     The conditioned hours of operation 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday only except for the after hours and weekend use are standard operating hours for child care centre;

·     Potential noise and visual privacy are adequately minimised through physical and operational measures;

·     Parking and traffic, have been investigated and assessed appropriately by Council’s Development Engineer and Traffic committee consideration. These Offices within Council consider that in relation to parking and space for drop off and pick up that the proposed can reasonably be accommodated within the site and residential area, subject to suitable conditions to protect amenity of the surrounding area.

 

Noise (Acoustic) Amenity

 

A key consideration of child care centres is that appropriate design and siting of child care centres should minimise overlooking and noise intrusion to and from adjoining properties and maintain a high level of environmental amenity for children, staff and other centre users. The relevant objectives under this part of the DCP seek:

 

·     To minimise any potential adverse impacts on the visual and acoustic privacy of neighbouring properties.

·     To protect the visual and acoustic privacy of children, staff and other users of the child care centre.

 

The applicant submitted an acoustic report with the original application and an updated acoustic report with the Section 82A application. The acoustic report submitted with this Section 82A review has been the subject of review and subsequent imposition of conditions by Councils Senior Environmental Health Officer.

 

It is noted that there were no objections to the original proposal and there are no objections raised by Council officers in relation to noise associated with the Section 82A review that reduces down to 24 the number of children sought to be taken care of in the child care centre. To provide further certainty to Council and the community, a condition is also included requiring an acoustic validation assessment be undertaken three months after occupation to confirm the operation of the childcare centre is operating in accordance with the requirements of the acoustic report supporting the development application as amended in the Section 82A review.

 

In other words, the proposed development has the capacity to comply with the relevant noise criteria pending implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the acoustic report as well as including Councils standard noise conditions for development consent.

 

Overall, acoustic amenity is considered to have been reasonably addressed by the applicant and subject to appropriate conditions of consent being imposed should approval be granted, the proposal will not adversely impact on the acoustic amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

Plan of management –After hours and weekend use

 

A detailed Plan of Management was submitted to Council with the Section 82A review. The Plan of Management outlines how children will be managed and supervised in the indoor and outdoor play areas to ensure noise is kept to a minimum. The plan of management is referenced as a condition of consent. The PoM is comprehensive and generally acceptable having regard to minimising amenity impacts and operating as efficiently as possible.

 

However the PoM identifies an additional uses after hours and weekend that do not fit into the definition of a child care centre and are not identified as uses that are permissible in the R2 zone. These include:

 

·         After hours the premises to be used for parental evenings and wider community use. There is no indication of closing times.

·         Weekend use between 10am and 4pm for the purpose of family related services available for parents of the centre (1st preference) and the wider community.

 

The complicating facet of the after hours use and weekend use is that the premises ceases to fall within the definition of a child care centre and is falling into another classification as a community facility. However by definition; under the RLEP; the proposed use does not meet the requirements to be defined as a community facility as it is not owned or controlled by a public authority or non-profit community organisation. Therefore the proposed use for after-hours parental use and or use by the wider community is prohibited and a condition is included to that effect.

 

It is also considered that the use as a community facility will generate a greater demand for on street parking and for longer periods as opposed to the demand created by child care centre which contains only peak times for drop off and pick up. In addition given the general nature of such uses there is no certainty being provided whereby the PoM indicates a use by wider groups.

 

As such this part of the application is not supported.

 

Parking

 

Part B7 Transport, Traffic, Parking and Access - Parking and traffic of the RDCP requires that parking be provided for child care centres at the rate of 1 space per 2 staff members plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop-off of children.

 

Based on the above requirements for the proposed 24 child care places, the proposal requires 3 spaces for staff and 3 spaces for drop off and pick up.

 

Five spaces are provided in total being two on site for staff and three along the kerb for drop off and pick up with only a small encroachment in front of No. 29 Duncan Street. Councils Development Engineer indicates no objection given that even if a vehicle cross-over was installed to 29 Duncan Street it would be required to have a setback from the boundary shared with No. 27 Duncan Street.

 

The timed curbside drop off and pick up spaces have been approved by the Randwick Traffic Committee at its March 2017 meeting. The peak traffic generation from the development has been assessed against the RMS Guidelines and considered to have very minimal impact on the performance of the surrounding street network. 

 

Having regard to the above, this section 82A review application reduces the shortfall in parking and drop off and pick up spaces from three spaces down to one space shortfall by providing an additional space on site and reducing the demand for parking by reducing the number of children in the child care centre from 32 down to 24.

 

In accordance with the performance approach identified under the Randwick Development Control Plan 2013, with due regard to concerns raised by residents in the community, it is considered against the relevant objectives of the RDCP for parking and traffic have been satisfied removing what is considered to be one of the main impediments to the original application favourable recommendation.

 

In addition Councils development engineer has also sought to minimise staff parking demand by requiring the provision of a bike rack and the submission of a green travel plan.

 

Overall, Traffic and parking issues has been the subject of assessment by both Councils Development Engineers and Transport Committee. The planning outcome of these considerations is that in relation to parking and potential impacts on the surrounding area the shortfall in parking of one staff space can be supported on the basis of meeting the relevant objectives of the Comprehensive DCP with regard to parking, traffic and access and safety issues around the site and within the surrounding area.

 

Referral comments:

 

Development Engineer and Landscape Officer

 

A Section 82A application has been received for Council’s refusal to grant consent for alterations and additions to the existing building, fencing with associated works, and conversion to childcare centre catering 24 children.

 

Original Proposal: Alterations and additions to the existing building, garage and fencing with associated works and conversion to childcare centre catering for 43 children.

 

This report is based on the following plans and documentation:

·     Amended Architectural Plans  by Theresa Galea stamped by Council 22nd August 2016;

·     Amended Statement of Environmental Effects by Concise Planning dated 17 August 2016

·     Amended Transport and Parking Study by Traffix dated 1th August 2016.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

The original application was not supported by Development Engineering and subsequently refused  as the site was not considered appropriate for a child care centre of the proposed numbers due to the lack of parking facilities (only 1 space provided) and subsequent unacceptable impacts on the availability of on-street parking should the application be approved. This view also extended to the amended proposal to reduce child numbers to 32 places.

 

Section 82A review

As part of the Section 82A review the applicant has proposed to further reduce the size of the centre to 24 places (down from 32) and 6 staff (down from 8) & provide 1 additional carspace on the site for staff  with a total of  2 off-street spaces provided.

 

Development Engineering has considered the significantly reduced development proposed by the Section 82A review & raises no further objections to the proposal subject to a condition restricting child numbers to a maximum of 24 children. It should also be noted that the proposed pick-up and drop-off zone was approved by Randwick traffic Committee at its March 2017 meeting.

 

PARKING COMMENTS

Parking Provision has been assessed for the amended Section 82A proposal adopting the relevant parking rate stated in Part B7 of Council’s DCP 2013 as

 

1 space per 2 staff plus 1 space per 8 children for pickup and drop-off

 

Under the DCP rate a total of 6 spaces (3 staff + 3 pick-up and drop-off) will be required. As two spaces have been provided on the site there is a parking deficiency of 4 spaces. The three pickup and drop-off spaces will be provided by the provision of a timed pick-up and drop-off zone along the site frontage

 

Staff Parking

Staff numbers have been reduced to a total of 6 from the 8 originally proposed.  This will generate a maximum parking demand of 3 spaces when assessed against the DCP parking rate. Two off-street car spaces have been provided hence there is still a parking deficiency of 1 spaces (33%).

 

Although an improvement on previous proposals, a parking shortfall for the staff is still evident on the site and it is very indicative of the site’s appropriateness for a childcare centre where a relatively small centre of 24 places cannot even provide enough parking for staff.

 

The 1 space shortfall has been considered in the context of the sites proximity to public transport and alternative transport options as well as the existing demand for on-street parking. The minor deficiency is considered to be acceptable in this instance however additional conditions have been included to minimise staff parking demand including the provision of a bike rack and submission of a green travel plan.

 

Pickup and Drop-off

The proposed reduced 24 place centre would require the minimum provision of 3 spaces for pick-up and drop-of when adopting the DCP parking rate. These cannot be provided on the site and the accompanying traffic report by TRAFFIX is proposing a  16.6m long timed pick-up and drop-off zone on the eastern side of Duncan Avenue along the site frontage to manage this demand.

 

Council’s Development & Transport Engineers will generally only support on-street pickup and drop-off zones when restricted to the site frontage/s. Adopting this requirement the applicant proposes to restrict the length of the proposed pickup and drop-off zone to approx. 16.6m. Under Australian Standard 2890.5 (On-street parking) a 16.6m long zone will not accommodate 3 spaces. The applicant argues that full length carspaces are based on the B99 vehicle and it is unlikely 3 vehicles of this length will be using the zone at the same time. Accordingly they consider the proposed 16.6m zone will adequately accommodate 3 vehicles. It should be noted that Development Engineering has determined that the length of the zone would actually be about 16.4m when taking into account the wings of the proposed crossing.

 

Notwithstanding, Development Engineering may support a small encroachment over the neighbouring frontage of up to 1 m. This is based on the view that even if a new future crossing was proposed in front of the neighbouring property at 29 Duncan St it would unlikely be supported closer than this to the common boundary. The neighbouring property also has a dual street frontage to Bond Street This will lengthen the proposed pickup and drop-off zone to approx. 17.4m and will enable 2 spaces of 6m and 1 space at 5.4m to be provided in accordance with As 2890.5.

 

Approval Of timed pick-up and drop-off zone by Randwick Traffic Committee

As the application has not previously been supported in any form, the proposed pick-up and drop-off zone along the Duncan St frontage was not referred to Randwick traffic Committee. It is now standard Development Engineering practice to have the zone approved prior to the issuing of any development consent.

 

The pick-up and drop-off zone has now been approved by Randwick Traffic Committee (RTC) at its March 2017 meeting.

 

TRAFFIC GENERATION

Traffic impacts during the peak pick-up and drop-off times of the amended childcare centre have been determined adopting the rates provided in the ‘RMS Guide to Traffic Generating Developments’. The following vehicle trip generation has been calculated during the peak times associated with the proposal;

 

Time                                          Number of Trips

7:00-9:00am                             0.8 x 24 = 19.2

2:30-4:00pm                             0.3 x 24 = 7.2

4:00-6:00 pm                            0.7 x 24 = 16.8

Total                                           = 43.2

 

This indicates that the proposed amended 24 place child care centre would generate a total of approximately 43.2 vehicle trips per day. During the 7-9am peak there would be a vehicle arriving/departing  the centre once every 6.3 minutes on average while during the 4-6pm peak this decreases to once every 7.1 minutes.  This is expected to have very minimal impact on the performance of the surrounding road network with the submitted traffic report stating that all intersections will continue to operate within existing service levels.

 

Landscape Comments

There are no existing trees, covered by Part B5 (Preservation of Trees and Vegetation) in Council's DCP 2013, that will be affected by this proposal.

 

Senior Environmental Health Officer

 

Proposed Development:

An amended application seeks approval for the change of use from an existing dwelling house to a childcare centre. The centre proposes to accommodate a maximum of 24 children of age 0-2 years. The proposed hours of operation are 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday only.

 

Acoustics – The proposal includes a noise assessment prepared by Wilkinson Murray, report No.16126 Version D dated December 2016 which investigates the noise sources from the proposed development. 

 

Extract from document, section 5 Conclusion copied below:

 

Appropriate recommendations be imposed to ensure compliance with acoustic report and acoustic criteria.

 

Food Safety

 

Appropriate conditions will be recommended so as to ensure the requirements of the Food Act 2003 are complied with.

 

Senior Building Surveyor

 

 

Proposed Development:

 

Section 82A review of the refusal of the Development Application for the change of use from an existing dwelling to a child care centre and associated alterations.

 

Comments:

 

Classification – Class 9b – child care centre.

Rise of storeys 1

Type C construction

 

No objection subject to compliance with the requirements of the BCA Review, prepared by Building Certificates Australia Pty Ltd, dated 11 April 2016. 

 

Relationship to City Plan

 

The relationship with the City Plan is as follows:

 

Outcome 4:       Excellence in urban design and development.

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

 

Financial impact statement

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

Conclusion

 

The application for the childcare centre is considered to satisfactorily address the relevant provisions the Randwick DCP, subject to the implementation and compliance with appropriate conditions of consent.

 

In respect to the application history and assessment the applicant has amended their application to address the key issues in relation to the capacity of the child care centre, provide adequate parking and space for pick up and drop off, and minimising adverse impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

 

The proposed section 82A review is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

 

Recommendation

 

A.     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 centre catering 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.

 

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

 

Certification, PCA & other 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.

 

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

 

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

 

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 (LA90), 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 LAeq, 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.

 

 

Attachment/s:

 

Nil